Where's the Love???

Status
Not open for further replies.
dreama said:
Whilst Bush certainly had his faults, their are lots of worse governments around the world. Take a look at china for example. You can't say Bush was worse then that.
Click to expand...

comparing bush to china is a stretch. after all, i don't live in china.
 
Hear Again said:
comparing bush to china is a stretch. after all, i don't live in china.
Click to expand...

I was using China as an exteme example.

Their are services for disabled in America that I would have loved to have here in England such as NFB style training centre and university for deaf people.
 
dreama said:
I was using China as an exteme example.

Their are services for disabled in America that I would have loved to have here in England such as NFB style training centre and university for deaf people.
Click to expand...

yes, it's an extreme example that doesn't hold water, imo.

why not move here to the u.s. so you can take advantage of the services we offer people with disabilities?
 
Jiro said:
so do countries under Islamic Fundamentalist. For ie - stoning women of committing adultery or even being touched by a man. They even stoned rape victims. :mad2:

China's had plenty of protests and political revolutions so it's somewhat ok. But as for Islamic countries, it's a crime to speak against government and it can be punishable by death. Have you ever heard of any political revolutions or protests in those countries? That's the country you should be angry at. China is nothing comparable to that. Even women have more rights in China than those countries.
Click to expand...

I know. My point was just their are worse governments then Bush. I just use extreme example that's all.

Your right about Islamic states though.
 
Hear Again said:
yes, it's an extreme example that doesn't hold water, imo.

why not move here to the u.s. so you can take advantage of the services we offer people with disabilities?
Click to expand...

You said anything was better then Bush so I was just using china as an extreme example.
I wouldn't have minded moving to USA under Macain but I'm not sure about Obama since he says he's going to change USA and I might not like what it changes into. We'll see.

Would I stand much of a chance thoug? I know Australia is very difficult to immigrate too as My brother imigrated their. Wouldn't the similar sort of thing be the case with USA too?
 
dreama said:
You said anything was better then Bush so I was just using china as an extreme example.
I wouldn't have minded moving to USA under Macain but I'm not sure about Obama since he says he's going to change USA and I might not like what it changes into. We'll see.

Would I stand much of a chance thoug? I know Australia is very difficult to immigrate too as My brother imigrated their. Wouldn't the similar sort of thing be the case with USA too?
Click to expand...

if you want to move here to the u.s., there's nothing stopping you and from what i understand, there are no restrictions in doing so as long as you don't enter the country illegally.

by the way, what if it turned out that you DO like obama's policies? then what?
 
Hear Again said:
if you want to move here to the u.s., there's nothing stopping you and from what i understand, there are no restrictions in doing so as long as you don't enter the country illegally.

by the way, what if it turned out that you DO like obama's policies? then what?
Click to expand...

I guess she'd be eating crow.:giggle:
 
jillio said:
And the fact that he was acquitted is testiment to the fact that he had not committed an impeachable act. One who is acquitted of a crime is found to be likely to not be convicted of said crime. A failed impeachment is not an impeachment, just as a failed conviction is not a conviction.
Click to expand...
These are impeachable acts:

"The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice)."
 
Reba said:
These are impeachable acts:

"The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice)."
Click to expand...

:ty:
 
Reba said:
These are impeachable acts:

"The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice)."
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. That is the very reason that the impeachment did not hold up. It could not be substantiated that he had impeached himself because of the way the questions were phrased and the subjective definition of the wording used.
 
There's divide, Clinton is found guilty from house of rep but not found guilty from senate, he kept serve as president until end of his term.

Many republicans are really love to trash on Clinton.
 
jillio said:
Ah, yes. That is the very reason that the impeachment did not hold up. It could not be substantiated that he had impeached himself because of the way the questions were phrased and the subjective definition of the wording used.
Click to expand...

if this country runs on rules alone... President Clinton would be easily impeached but no... in this beautiful country - you are judged by the peers at court and fortunately... people had spoken and judged that what President Clinton did does not really warrant conviction even though he committed shameful wrongdoings and abused his power...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top