smotherb Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 7 hours ago, freebyrd said: It's been a farce for a very long time already. Yeah, but a farce where the citizens get paid more and have a higher standard of living than the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebyrd Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, smotherb said: Yeah, but a farce where the citizens get paid more and have a higher standard of living than the UK. I would lay money that there is more poverty in the great US of A than there is in the UK. We see all the rosy stuff but if you look deeper you see the run down side of the land of the free. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, freebyrd said: I would lay money that there is more poverty in the great US of A than there is in the UK. We see all the rosy stuff but if you look deeper you see the run down side of the land of the free. Really, well try researching incomes, pensions, standards of living . . . An while you are at it, try https://fullfact.org/economy/one-in-five-poverty/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content You'll find that one in five UKes are in absolute poverty--that's 20% The US is closer to 15% or less https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/03/never-ending-war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebyrd Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, smotherb said: Really, well try researching incomes, pensions, standards of living . . . An while you are at it, try https://fullfact.org/economy/one-in-five-poverty/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content You'll find that one in five UKes are in absolute poverty--that's 20% The US is closer to 15% or less https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/03/never-ending-war Sorry to disappoint but I won't 'be at' anything. If I was given a choice between the two countries I know where I would rather live. Thank you and don't forget now, have a nice day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 18 hours ago, smotherb said: Oh, are Americans not concerned because Trump is a Republican? Seems some Americans were certainly concerned about Democrat president Clinton's sexual dalliances. By the way, weren't Clinton's sexual relations and his denial thereof part of the grounds for his impeachment? So, there may be more to it than her desire to make money. No Americans were not that concerned and wanted him to remain as POTUS and he was NEVER impeached if you recall. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 10 hours ago, smotherb said: Really, well try researching incomes, pensions, standards of living . . . An while you are at it, try https://fullfact.org/economy/one-in-five-poverty/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content You'll find that one in five UKes are in absolute poverty--that's 20% The US is closer to 15% or less https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2018/03/never-ending-war Utter nonsense and depends how you define 'poverty'. I am from the UK and don't tell me 20% are in 'absolute poverty'. Lies, damn lies and statistics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BobBKK said: No Americans were not that concerned and wanted him to remain as POTUS and he was NEVER impeached if you recall. He definitely was impeached in congress. He was not convicted in the senate so allowed to stay. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jingthing said: He definitely was impeached in congress. He was not convicted in the senate so allowed to stay. He was acquitted and so it was not successful ergo : no impeachment 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BobBKK said: He was acquitted and so it was not successful ergo : no impeachment You are incorrect and now digging your error deeper. He was impeached. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Time to learn it before you keep posting inaccurately. https://www.reference.com/history/presidents-impeached-7145eda7106ac541 As of 2015, Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents of the United States that the U.S. Congress has impeached. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Jingthing said: You are incorrect and now digging your error deeper. He was impeached. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Time to learn it before you keep posting inaccurately. An academic and pedantic point (normal for you). Technically impeached but ACQUITTED and so my point in the post was CORRECT even if I made a technical error your highness. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, BobBKK said: An academic and pedantic point (normal for you). Technically impeached but ACQUITTED and so my point in the post was CORRECT even if I made a technical error your highness. No. Not pedantic. BASIC KNOWLEDGE. It's weird you refuse to accept basic terms. Back to "trump" he is at risk to be impeached if the democrats take the house in November, but it would be a much higher bar to convict him in the senate. Similar to Clinton. But the charges against Clinton weren't objectively that horrible. We're waiting to see what emerges about "trump." It is conceivable that the charges might be so severe that he could be impeached and convicted and/or disgraced into resignation like Nixon, who was in the process of being impeached when he did that. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran00001 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, BobBKK said: It isn't the reality that's why The reality is that the term "absolute poverty" has no set meaning, the UK and UN terms mean completely different things, but that only means you are ignorant of the UK term rather than their stat being misleading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jingthing said: No. Not pedantic. BASIC KNOWLEDGE. It's weird you refuse to accept basic terms. It changes not my point. I accept technically he might have been impeached but it is irrelevant as he was acquitted (the word means not guilty). I d not want to get into a pedantic argument (you love those) which deflects from the point thank you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said: The reality is that the term "absolute poverty" has no set meaning, the UK and UN terms mean completely different things, but that only means you are ignorant of the UK term rather than their stat being misleading. Agreed no set meaning. Are you from the UK? if you were you would know that 'in the real world' 20% of Britons are not in 'absolute poverty'. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BobBKK said: It changes not my point. I accept technically he might have been impeached but it is irrelevant as he was acquitted (the word means not guilty). I d not want to get into a pedantic argument (you love those) which deflects from the point thank you. Not might. WAS! Again, it is not pedantic. Nobody can even begin to intelligently discuss what might happen to "trump" now without understanding the difference between impeachment and conviction. That is basic. Just man up and accept that please and don't waste our time with silly arguments promoting ignorance. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mikebike Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, BobBKK said: It changes not my point. I accept technically he might have been impeached but it is irrelevant as he was acquitted (the word means not guilty). I d not want to get into a pedantic argument (you love those) which deflects from the point thank you. The point seems to be you will throw out any crap which comes to your mind as fact then furiously backpeddle and obfuscate. It's amusing that you will never admit to being obviously wrong. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jingthing said: No. Not pedantic. BASIC KNOWLEDGE. It's weird you refuse to accept basic terms. Back to "trump" he is at risk to be impeached if the democrats take the house in November, but it would be a much higher bar to convict him in the senate. Similar to Clinton. But the charges against Clinton weren't objectively that horrible. We're waiting to see what emerges about "trump." It is conceivable that the charges might be so severe that he could be impeached and convicted and/or disgraced into resignation like Nixon, who was in the process of being impeached when he did that. Ah 'charges were not that horrible' because it was Clinton right? BJ's in the White House are ok? the bias is outstanding. On a more serious note let's wait and see about Trump and I could see Comey in serious legal trouble too but we all are guessing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, BobBKK said: Agreed no set meaning. Are you from the UK? if you were you would know that 'in the real world' 20% of Britons are not in 'absolute poverty'. Sure objective facts should always take a back seat to the subjective reality Bob perceives. Hahaha. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jingthing said: Not might. WAS! Again, it is not pedantic. Nobody can even begin to intelligently discuss what might happen to "trump" now without understanding the difference between impeachment and conviction. That is basic. Just man up and accept that please and don't waste our time with silly arguments promoting ignorance. ACQUITTED 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Just now, mikebike said: Sure objective facts should always take a back seat to the subjective reality Bob perceives. Hahaha. Are you British? you are seriously suggesting one in five are in 'absolute poverty'? amazing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, BobBKK said: Ah 'charges were not that horrible' because it was Clinton right? BJ's in the White House are ok? the bias is outstanding. On a more serious note let's wait and see about Trump and I could see Comey in serious legal trouble too but we all are guessing. He wasn't impeached for BJs. Again, promoting ignorance. Sure, Comey might get in legal trouble and McCabe seems to be more at risk, but neither are president or even have government jobs NOW so much less consequential. Clinton was mostly not convicted for political reasons, as he had the votes in the senate to block that. It's largely a political process. But the perjury charge, while serious, is not as objectively serious as some of the potential rumblings towards "trump" which may fall more into the treason category. All I'm saying is that IF the charges against "trump" are objectively very severe (as they were towards Nixon which pressured a resignation) that might "trump" the political advantage he has in the senate. We'll have to wait and see. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, BobBKK said: ACQUITTED After being impeached. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Just now, Jingthing said: After being impeached. I accepted that he was technically impeached now stop the bullying and harassment. My point is valid but I should have said "he was acquitted". Happy now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted April 20, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, BobBKK said: I accepted that he was technically impeached now stop the bullying and harassment. My point is valid but I should have said "he was acquitted". Happy now? You're accusing me of bullying and harassment for not accepting that you are posting inaccuracies and you repeatedly not accepting valid corrections. No thanks. I'm not playing anymore. GOODBYE. Edited April 20, 2018 by Jingthing 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jingthing said: He wasn't impeached for BJs. Again, promoting ignorance. Sure, Comey might get in legal trouble and McCabe seems to be more at risk, but neither are president or even have government jobs NOW so much less consequential. Clinton was mostly not convicted for political reasons, as he had the votes in the senate to block him. But the perjury charge, while serious, is not as serious as some of the potential rumblings towards "trump" which may fall more into the treason category. He was 'impeached' for lying to a grand jury when he said 'no sexual relations' (i.e. BJ in the WH) but was ACQUITTED yes for political reasons same as most of the BS around Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran00001 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 23 minutes ago, BobBKK said: Agreed no set meaning. Are you from the UK? if you were you would know that 'in the real world' 20% of Britons are not in 'absolute poverty'. In the real world there are set meanings, just not one set meaning. 20% of the British do not live in absolute poverty by the UN definition but 20% of the British do live in absolute poverty by the UK definition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBKK Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said: In the real world there are set meanings, just not one set meaning. 20% of the British do not live in absolute poverty by the UN definition but 20% of the British do live in absolute poverty by the UK definition. Yes agreed and thanks for the recognition that it's just a 'definition' when in reality many Africans with not even a bowl of rice live in 'absolute poverty'. I would say that in the UK many people are on State Benefits (maybe 20% I don't know the figure) and suffer some hardship, but everything's relative, however 'absolute poverty' is hyperbole. UN definition:Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, BobBKK said: It isn't the reality that's why You mean not your reality. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Off-topic posts and replies removed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 6 hours ago, BobBKK said: No Americans were not that concerned and wanted him to remain as POTUS and he was NEVER impeached if you recall. Ah, pardon me? You seem to be confused. Impeach means " to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a serious offence in connection with their job, especially in the US " https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeach Impeach does not mean the person impeached was found guilty, it is simply a legal action to determine guilt; and Clinton was not found guilty. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now