A Report Exposing the Most Corupt President Ever?

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

it really strikes the same dissonant chord with me as WWF fans' zealous support of their favorite wrestler. Why? Because you like his colors? Or he says cool stuff that makes you feel cool? Or he's from your hometown? Or you think he's *really* a better wrestler? DUDE, THE WHOLE THING'S A SHAM!

Watch your mouth, young man.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

What I feel here is not important. He admitted to lying under oath.

OK, guilty for lying under oath. It's a bad thing. But it occurred during the impeachment, it was not the basis for impeachment.

But, what was the actual main charge? I don't recall. It wasn't the blow jobs, was it the finance stuff? Or was it just an "unfit" subjective thing or a "we don't really like him" thing?

That's never been very clear to me. No more than the general dissatisfaction we see currently (the any port in a storm attitude).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Please tell us which President was removed from office after an
>impeachment.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign after impeachment proceedings began on May 9, 1974. In August the tape proving his complicity in the Watergate burglaries was released. He then resigned, and was pardoned by his vice president (now president.)

That's not what you originally said but thanks for clarifying.


-

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

What I feel here is not important. He admitted to lying under oath.

OK, guilty for lying under oath. It's a bad thing. But it occurred during the impeachment, it was not the basis for impeachment.

But, what was the actual main charge? I don't recall. It wasn't the blow jobs, was it the finance stuff? Or was it just an "unfit" subjective thing or a "we don't really like him" thing?

That's never been very clear to me. No more than the general dissatisfaction we see currently (the any port in a storm attitude).

It wasn't about sex and I believe you know that. But that is what the Clinton machine and media made it out to be........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

>Please tell us which President was removed from office after an
>impeachment.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign after impeachment proceedings began on May 9, 1974. In August the tape proving his complicity in the Watergate burglaries was released. He then resigned, and was pardoned by his vice president (now president.)

That's not what you originally said but thanks for clarifying.
-

Did Andrew Jackson get impeached and then removed? Or did he resign under threat of an Impeachment trial? I don't recall.

I don't think any president has been removed via the impeachment process. I thought three were impeached though, with various other results.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What I feel here is not important. He admitted to lying under oath.

OK, guilty for lying under oath. It's a bad thing. But it occurred during the impeachment, it was not the basis for impeachment.

But, what was the actual main charge? I don't recall. It wasn't the blow jobs, was it the finance stuff? Or was it just an "unfit" subjective thing or a "we don't really like him" thing?

That's never been very clear to me. No more than the general dissatisfaction we see currently (the any port in a storm attitude).

The grounds for Clintons Impeachment began when he lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case brought against him.


-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Did Andrew Jackson get impeached and then removed? Or did he resign under threat of an Impeachment trial? I don't recall.

I don't think any president has been removed via the impeachment process. I thought three were impeached though, with various other results.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/johnson.htm


In 1862, Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee. In an effort to win votes from Democrats, Lincoln (a Republican) chose Johnson (a War Democrat) as his running mate in 1864 and they swept to victory in the presidential election.

-

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Most of my beef is with the media through all of this. (i know this is a change)
For example, the Delay charges.......all over the news. But Pelosi gets into similar deep water (not exactly the same) and you can barely find a line or it is buried.

I share your frustration with this. The media will pick and choose which scandals to put in the spotlight, but I don't think it's purely partisan -- although I do not entirely rule out partisanship as a contributing factor.

Instead, I think a bigger factor in their decision making is the volume of reaction they can stir with the story. In your example, a lot of people might hear the name Pelosi and think it's a pasta dish, but the name Tom DeLay definitely is associated with politics. Pasta scandals don't get the best ratings.

During the Clinton-Lewinsky shindig, I recall the networks, including CNN, going on a feeding frenzy. And why? Because they were right-leaning at the time?

I think, for the most part, whoever's already more-in-the-spotlight is going to get covered more when shit goes down. Not that I think that's hugely better (maybe a tiny bit) than being purely partisan about it, though.

It still frustrates me. Don't feed me sensationalism. Inform me. I promise to sit through your goddamned commercials if you do.

Quote

If Bush is guilty of something then he should be impeached and jailed but the charges being thrown are for the most part Bullshit. But the media is all over it. Clinton is an admited felon but since he is elected and popular we can't remove a sitting president. Two differnet rules!!

My point? If you are going to make accusations then have some facts to back it up and, more importtantly, do it to both sides

Take time to consider, though, that when people do wrong (break laws, violate trust, etc.), some get away with it better than others, either in general or on a case-by-case basis.

If Clinton had really taken the time to plan and cover his gallavanting with the young sow, then there would have been no "facts" (tadpole graveyard, e.g.), and there would have been no perjury, and there would have been no admission. If anything had arisen about it, it likely would've been relegated to a he-said-she-said. Case dismissed.

But the shaft-slobbering still would have occurred. He just would have gotten away with it better.

A lot of folks tend to spout bullshit along with some of their more valid criticisms, and I agree that destroys the credibility of those individuals. But...

Baby. Bathwater. Let's not do that.

I think public criticism of our leaders is one of our most effective methods of keeping them in check, lest they run amok unfettered. And, taking into account just how much power tends to corrupt, I don't think anyone wants that to happen.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The grounds for Clintons Impeachment began when he lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case brought against him.-

OK, that trial and the impeachment process just kind of ran together in my mind.

Did he perjure DURING the impeachment itself?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The grounds for Clintons Impeachment began when he lied under oath in a sexual harrassment case brought against him.-

OK, that trial and the impeachment process just kind of ran together in my mind.

Did he perjure DURING the impeachment itself?

Yes, he commited perjury in front of Starrs Grand Jury. After the Starr report, Henry Hyde submitted 81 questions to Clinton. He lied several times in answering them. He also was charged with Obstruction of Justice for trying to influence witnesses to commit perjury by lying for him.

-

[rehmwa 2]

Nope, this just isn't any fun this many years later. Willy is retired, I'm not that interested.

Who likes arbitrary numbers?????

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Most of my beef is with the media through all of this. (i know this is a change)
For example, the Delay charges.......all over the news. But Pelosi gets into similar deep water (not exactly the same) and you can barely find a line or it is buried.

I share your frustration with this. The media will pick and choose which scandals to put in the spotlight, but I don't think it's purely partisan -- although I do not entirely rule out partisanship as a contributing factor.

Instead, I think a bigger factor in their decision making is the volume of reaction they can stir with the story. In your example, a lot of people might hear the name Pelosi and think it's a pasta dish, but the name Tom DeLay definitely is associated with politics. Pasta scandals don't get the best ratings.

During the Clinton-Lewinsky shindig, I recall the networks, including CNN, going on a feeding frenzy. And why? Because they were right-leaning at the time?

I think, for the most part, whoever's already more-in-the-spotlight is going to get covered more when shit goes down. Not that I think that's hugely better (maybe a tiny bit) than being purely partisan about it, though.

It still frustrates me. Don't feed me sensationalism. Inform me. I promise to sit through your goddamned commercials if you do.

Quote

If Bush is guilty of something then he should be impeached and jailed but the charges being thrown are for the most part Bullshit. But the media is all over it. Clinton is an admited felon but since he is elected and popular we can't remove a sitting president. Two differnet rules!!

My point? If you are going to make accusations then have some facts to back it up and, more importtantly, do it to both sides

Take time to consider, though, that when people do wrong (break laws, violate trust, etc.), some get away with it better than others, either in general or on a case-by-case basis.

If Clinton had really taken the time to plan and cover his gallavanting with the young sow, then there would have been no "facts" (tadpole graveyard, e.g.), and there would have been no perjury, and there would have been no admission. If anything had arisen about it, it likely would've been relegated to a he-said-she-said. Case dismissed.

But the shaft-slobbering still would have occurred. He just would have gotten away with it better.

A lot of folks tend to spout bullshit along with some of their more valid criticisms, and I agree that destroys the credibility of those individuals. But...

Baby. Bathwater. Let's not do that.

I think public criticism of our leaders is one of our most effective methods of keeping them in check, lest they run amok unfettered. And, taking into account just how much power tends to corrupt, I don't think anyone wants that to happen.

I agree with alot of your post.............but your descriptions are fantastic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nathaniel 0]

What does that have to do with Ulysses S Grant?

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?