Is Newt right?
- Thread starter Big Money
- Start date
Seems to me your recollection, as are your facts, suffer from LIRS (pronounced liars - Liberal Indistinguishable Reality Syndrome). It was thanks to Clinton that Republicans won the House AND the Senate after decades on the margins of political power.
Republicans relinquished their control of the House and Senate in the 2006 midterms. After dimwitted Democrats spent us into trillion dollar deficits on their false promise of fiscal restraint thanks to idiots like you, Americans woke up and kicked dimwitted Pelosi and her canal of miscreants to the curb in 2010. Perhaps the shortest speakership in history.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
The Florida Central Voter File was an internal list of legally eligible voters used by the US Florida Department of State Division of Elections to monitor the official voter lists maintained by the 67 county governments in the State of Florida between 1998 and January 1, 2006. The exclusion of eligible voters from the file was a central part of the controversy surrounding the US presidential elections in 2000, which hinged on results in Florida. The 'Florida Central Voter File' was replaced by the Florida Voter Registration System on January 1, 2006 when a new federal law, the Help America Vote Act, came into effect.
James Lee's testimony[edit]
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[4]
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.
The Florida Central Voter File was an internal list of legally eligible voters used by the US Florida Department of State Division of Elections to monitor the official voter lists maintained by the 67 county governments in the State of Florida between 1998 and January 1, 2006. The exclusion of eligible voters from the file was a central part of the controversy surrounding the US presidential elections in 2000, which hinged on results in Florida. The 'Florida Central Voter File' was replaced by the Florida Voter Registration System on January 1, 2006 when a new federal law, the Help America Vote Act, came into effect.
James Lee's testimony[edit]
On 17 April 2001, James Lee testified, before the McKinney panel, that the state had given DBT the directive to add to the purge list people who matched at least 90% of a last name. DBT objected, knowing that this would produce a huge number of false positives (non-felons).[4]
Lee went on saying that the state then ordered DBT to shift to an even lower threshold of 80% match, allowing also names to be reversed (thus a person named Thomas Clarence could be taken to be the same as Clarence Thomas). Besides this, middle initials were skipped, Jr. and Sr. suffixes dropped, and some nicknames and aliases were added to puff up the list.
"DBT told state officials", testified Lee, "that the rules for creating the [purge] list would mean a significant number of people who were not deceased, not registered in more than one county, or not a felon, would be included on the list. DBT made suggestions to reduce the numbers of eligible voters included on the list". According to Lee, to this suggestion the state told the company, "Forget about it".
"The people who worked on this (for DBT) are very adamant... they told them what would happen", said Lee. "The state expected the county supervisors to be the failsafe." Lee said his company will never again get involved in cleansing voting rolls. "We are not confident any of the methods used today can guarantee legal voters will not be wrongfully denied the right to vote", Lee told a group of Atlanta-area black lawmakers in March 2001.
maineman
Banned
your recollection is correct, and mine, alas, incorrect. But in a larger sense, do you really think that the impeachment of Clinton was GOOD thing for the republican brand? Do you really think that there is anything impeachable in the performance of Obama?
Don't you?
Robo
Verified User
Why ”predict” anything as far away as next year in politics? Are you forgetting that Obama has appointed himself the power to rewrite law as he sees fit whenever he likes. What’s to prevent him from handing out one year exemptions to employers just like his first rewrite of the law and do it all the way up until he gets Hillary elected President?
And, of course, don't underestimate his prowess at producing new disasters as he goes...
But somehow the disasters all seem to vanish into thin air. Where’s Benghazi? Where’s Fast & Furious? Where’s the Justice Department’s spying on reporters rap? Where’s the IRS/Tea Party scandal? Where’s the NSA spying on America at?
Hey! Maybe it’s time to admit the bastard is bullet proof, huh?
And don’t forget he just had a BIG time meeting with all his propaganda purveyors from MSNBC.
evince
Truthmatters
court documented FACTS are not crap.
How can you discuss politics without pointing out one party should NOT even have power due to their cheating?
its EVERYTHING in a democracy.
Your party has defiled our democracy for decades now so they can STEAL the power from the people.
How can anyone discuss anything your party does in office without pointing out they don't DESERVE to even be in office
Robo
Verified User
How about if it’s ever proven that the IRS was ordered by the White House/Obama to target and frustrate the Tea Party applications for tax exemption? Would that do it for you?
Personally, I think there’s a great case right now for impeachment just by suing the bastard for unconstitutionally rewriting the Obama-Care law without Congressional legislation. The son-of-a-bitch has no such constitutional power.
Robo
Verified User
Can you prove that 90% figure Fatty Shitty Panties?
maineman
Banned
if that's what you think will do it, go for it. I am sure that the vast majority of Americans will be just as enthusiastic about THIS attempt to impeach a democratic president as they were the last time.
The Left doesn't get more evolved than you, dumpster diver.
I thought that the impeachment of Clinton was correct in that he lied under oath which is definitely an impeachable offense. It had NOTING to do with "brand" or “politics.” Unfortunately for Americans, this repugnant, arrogant, womanizing philanderer was prevented from impeachment by Democrat political hacks playing politics in the Senate; not one Democrat voted for impeachment requiring a 2/3rds majority.
You see, when it comes to political hackery, none can match the Democrat party.
But back to your original false claim; it did nothing to hurt the "republican" brand. Instead, it enhanced it. At least Republicans believed in the rule of law and had an issue with a President committing adultery with an intern while serving and then lying under oath about it; something any American with half a brain should find repugnant and below the office. Of course political partisans like you with an ideological agenda don't care about illegal behavior, repugnant behavior or bad judgment as long as they have a "D" next to their name.
No I do not as I have stated; being an arrogant buffoon is still not against our laws. Where have I stated otherwise?
maineman
Banned
we'll have to agree to disagree. While Clinton may have been less than truthful during a deposition, it was never "perjury" in that his statements were not material to the inquiry. I think that Americans were NOT happy with republicans co-option the process of governance for months on end during the Clinton kangaroo court, anymore than they are with Republicans stonewalling on any and everything in congress today. But hey... we'll see... you could be right and I could be wrong. Your guy, whoever it may be, may very well beat our candidate in 2016. Time will tell.
Why do you assume it will be a "guy"?
Less than truthful???? How is LYING under oath and having one's license to practice law suspended for it merely being "less than truthful"??? This coming from someone who falsely argues that Bush lied us into war has to be the pinnacle of irony or ignorance.
Bill Clinton was suspended from practicing law in Arkansas and paid a $250,000 fine as a result of the Monica Lewinski incident. He also paid a $850,000 settlement over the Paula Jones incident. He was also disbarred from practicing law in front of the Supreme Court.
maineman
Banned
again... lying under oath is not a crime. Perjury is. There was not even unanimity within the republican senators concerning Clinton's guilt.
And my assertion that Bush lied is res ipsa loquitur. When he said "there is no doubt" concerning Saddam's WMD's he was well aware of plenty of doubt within his own intelligence community.
And my assertion that Bush lied is res ipsa loquitur. When he said "there is no doubt" concerning Saddam's WMD's he was well aware of plenty of doubt within his own intelligence community.