Bush and the 20,000 extra troops

[genocidal]

It kinda annoys me that when people die, others act as if the person was a saint. Like, someone will get murdered, and yes that is shitty and wrong, but you'll have all these people going on tv going: he was such a nice kid, no never did anything wrong, I don't know why anyone would wanna kill him, he was so perfect. And I am like, yea.. sure.

I sure do hate that Martin Luther King, Jr. fucker. Most overrated piece of shit ever, what did he ever do for me? Everyone just thinks he's good because some guy shot his head off.

[404 Not Found]

IMHO, your definition of impeachment is not the same as the standard one. It seems to me that Wikipedia is reliable in a large topic such as "Impeachment" and it appears that a person is impeached in the House of Representatives. Following that, they are convicted in the Senate; but that's not the same as finalizing an impeachment. They aren't impeached in the Senate, they are convicted.

To me it seems like saying "Well, he was put on trial, but he wasn't convicted, so it wasn't a true trial." The impeachment is the trial and the conviction is, well, the conviction.

Even your quote directly says it: "In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives.".

As I noted prior: It would have required both the house and senate to have made this a true impeachment. If you want to call it impeachment, due to the HOR vote, I can agree and say you are correct.

Is a bill made into law if only one house voted in favor of it?

There are checks and balances to the process. I agree in noting your correct with the HOR's vote, but it would have also taken the Senate to vote in favor of this if it would have been held to a full impeachment.

It really doesn't matter though...he remained in office and was never removed due to the acts of impeachment through prosecution.

[404 Not Found]

whoever considers wikipedia a reliable source of information is a fool

It summed up basically most of what was said. It's not the best source for anything, so just for you Voth, here is what I didn't want to post due to length. My main sources are...the Library of Congress, Washington Post & PBS...as I mentioned..it was summed up by Wikipedia in a quick manner but for you I wanted to give the entire enchilada.

On October 8, House Resolution 581 introduced by Congressman Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was approved by the House in a 258 to 163 vote to authorize and direct the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of the President. After its staff interviewed various witnesses in private, the Judiciary Committee's public hearings commenced on November 19 with an opening statement by Congressman Hyde followed by additional hearings in which the Committee reviewed the issues and allegations of the Starr report and additional testimony provided by witnesses to its staff. The Committee also heard contrasting views from constitutional experts on the legal basis for impeachment as applied to the factual allegations pertaining to the Lewinsky matter.

A motion sponsored by Democrats to adopt a censure resolution as an alternative to the proposed impeachment was defeated on December 8. On December 11 and 12, the Committee approved four articles of impeachment for presentation to the full House, and on December 16 released its full Report supporting its recommendation. After debate, the House approved two of the Articles alleging that the President had provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. After the House vote, President Clinton appeared before the media at the White House, saying in part:

I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life. And I have invited members of Congress to work with us to find a reasonable, bipartisan and proportionate response. That approach was rejected today by Republicans in the House. But I hope it will be embraced by the Senate. I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.

The Impeachment Trial in the Senate commenced on January 7, 1999, with the announcement by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the presence of the managers on the part of the House of Representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the House concerning the impeachment of the President of the United States. After Congressman Hyde read the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, the Senate then adjourned, reconvening later that day with Chief Justice Rehnquist present, who was sworn in as presiding officer for the trial and who in turn swore in the 100 senators as jurors for the proceedings. The President's case was outlined in the White House Trial Memorandum submitted on January 13, which was countered by the House Rebuttal to White House Trial Memorandum. In subsequent sessions, the Senate voted to adopt a series of motions to limit evidence primarily to the previously video-taped depositions, affidavits and other documents previously introduced, and also voted to close its final deliberations to the public.

The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.

-----
Not my words..obviously, a copy and paste of a source here and there, but covers the proceedings and outcome of what was the Clinton Impeachment..or as I like to call it "The Kenneth Starr Show".

Odd how Gingrich (then Speaker of the House) was so keen on getting Clinton on what he called Morals more than lies, yet he was cheating on his own wife and then had divorce papers delivered to her while she was in the hospital having kemo treatments...couldn't have them delivered after...had to be at the hospital...such a classy guy Newt is and the morals of a saint.

[Ephemeral]

Yes there are rules but it's more of a "don't ask don't tell" policy. It's against the rules at my job and I can immediately think of 2-3 relationships that should not happen. It's not like the President is going to lose his job for fucking a secretary or we'd be at a serious loss for Presidents.
What was funny was your logic about the President being bound to military rules (he's Commander in Chief by virtue of office but still a civilian). Also funny is how you assume Monica Lewinsky/Linda Tripp/whoever is a military service member - obviously not the case.

My point was, and still is, that only a moron would have sex with a suborinate. You would bascially be saying, 'I don't care if I am going to be blackmailed' or 'I do not care that I might be gving this blowjob because if i do not, I might not get that raise or hold my job".
The logic stands.

[Ephemeral]

My main concern is that modern American culture has no respect for history, and 20 years from now, people might forget how much of a shitstain GWB was in his role as President.
Reagan wasn't anywhere near as bad as GWB, but when he died, people acted like he was a fucking hero who did no wrong. Nobody mentioned Oliver North, the CIA coke stuff, or the Contras.
Historical revisionism in popular culture is pretty easy to do, since the media nowadays pretty much just "talks" about the news instead of actually "reporting" it. As long as you have the money and influence, the media will not really spend their time analyzing in-depth talking about some stuff that happened 20-30 years ago. I just get sick to my stomach when I imagine how likely it will be for GWB to go down as a great President 20-30 years from now, despite all the dirty, incompetent, fucked up shit he's done during his time as President. It will turn me into one of those bitter old
people that fucking despise the Youth of the nation.

Yes, I have this concern too, especially since the many of the people in these forums seem to only think in terms of months and not years.
Many in these forums consider the Republicans as the 'war' party or hawks. What is the history? Here is some history....
- Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) got US into World War I
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) entered the US into World War II
- Harry S. Truman (Democrat) got the country into the Korean War in 1950
- John F. Kennedy (Democrat) started the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1961 which lead to war under the administration of Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
- Bush One (Republican) got us into Iraq in 1993
- Bush Two (Republican) got us into Iraq again
Using body counts, the numbers are much, much grimmer for the earlier wars.

I also get sick to my stomach, especially when I hear about the Youth of today thinking that oral sex is not REALLY sex. Or when I see people post in here about how 'getting a blow job' by a subordinate isn't that big of deal when in fact the issue is not that at all, it was the fact that a President committed perjury. Why do people continue to compare this to Bush lying? It comes across as a person simply whining about Bush, it is no where near logical. Lying to a person, to the entire nation, is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. The context is legal, not moral.

Is Bush a good leader? My opinion is no. Is he a jerk? My opinion is yes. But we should all be trying to separate our opinion, which few care about, when presenting factual information. Many in this forum do not even try to disguise their emotional opinions and present them as truisms. Offering an opinion is fine, but mark it as such and do not expect anyone to consider it seriously. I always try to respect the other person’s opinion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that I respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

[Epinephrine]

Yes, I have this concern too, especially since the many of the people in these forums seem to only think in terms of months and not years.
Many in these forums consider the Republicans as the 'war' party or hawks. What is the history? Here is some history....
- Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) got US into World War I
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) entered the US into World War II
- Harry S. Truman (Democrat) got the country into the Korean War in 1950
- John F. Kennedy (Democrat) started the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1961 which lead to war under the administration of Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
- Bush One (Republican) got us into Iraq in 1993
- Bush Two (Republican) got us into Iraq again
Using body counts, the numbers are much, much grimmer for the earlier wars.

Of course they are the 'war' party. Members of the Republican party right now are the only people who are asking for an escalation of the war in Iraq. Members of the Democratic party are not. By voting Democrat, you are showing you are against the war in Iraq. Whatever happened 40 years ago is pretty irrelevant to today's politics.

And yes, America in general is pretty warmonging no matter who is in charge, you are correct, but I don't think people would seriously think that the Democrats are so anti-war that they'd stop all wars (i.e. pull of of Afghanistan, disband the army, etc).

Or when I see people post in here about how 'getting a blow job' by a subordinate isn't that big of deal when in fact the issue is not that at all, it was the fact that a President committed perjury.

Sex with subordinate is bad I agree, but it happens all the time everywhere in the world. I think most people just didn't think it was a big deal considering how many people do it, and considering the real motivations for the Republicans to even bother investigating Clinton in the first place. Okay so he had some sex in the office and that's bad. But anyone with a brain knew the real reasons why the Republicans cared so much, and it was partisan politics. And it's stuff like that which sours the entire political system.

Why do people continue to compare this to Bush lying? It comes across as a person simply whining about Bush, it is no where near logical. Lying to a person, to the entire nation, is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. The context is legal, not moral.

It's true Clinton did commit a crime, if we take your assumption that oral sex is actually sex. But then again, if that is considered an outright lie then it's pointless to compare Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relations with Bush's lies. I mean one guy just lied about some affair that at most affected his family and 1 person (Monica). The other guy's lies has killed tens of thousands so far and and wounded many more.

[404 Not Found]

Reagan really put the spin on the Republican party and what they stand for in the recent past (2 deacdes ago).

The economic principle that Reagan tried to bring to the table had a large impact on his approval, especially after Carter.

The one thing Reagan did that pissed me off was to change the tax laws of which allowed one to write off the interest on your credit cards. That was one big hit to the consumer.

I agree with you Ephemeral on many many points. Especially the fact that it was the Democrats for over 100 years in this country that stood out as the negative in party politics and history. It has only been since the 70's, that I would actually say that both parties seemed to have moved to different Poles so to say when it comes to the basis of what they stand for today.

On a humorous note....I found two packs of old rolling papers I had back in the 70's with good `ol Spiro Agnews face on them...such a historical find

[HeavenSent]

The parties are a facade. Both are working for the same authority.
It's not a war on terror. It's a push towards globalism. Arab countries must submit or war is inevitable... war is inevitable. :fear:

[Kolar]

The parties are a facade. Both are working for the same authority.

[HeavenSent]

[DoTheFandango]

The parties are a facade. Both are working for the same authority.
It's not a war on terror. It's a push towards globalism. Arab countries must submit or war is inevitable... war is inevitable. :fear:

Kinda like Sects of Christianity?

[HeavenSent]

Kinda like Sects of Christianity?

Kinda Only the latter thinks they're on the side of opposition.

gg ..break topic ftw..

[Subjugation]

Yes, I have this concern too, especially since the many of the people in these forums seem to only think in terms of months and not years. Many in these forums consider the Republicans as the 'war' party or hawks. What is the history? Here is some history....
- Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) got US into World War I
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) entered the US into World War II
- Harry S. Truman (Democrat) got the country into the Korean War in 1950
- John F. Kennedy (Democrat) started the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1961 which lead to war under the administration of Lyndon Johnson (Democrat)
- Bush One (Republican) got us into Iraq in 1993
- Bush Two (Republican) got us into Iraq again
Using body counts, the numbers are much, much grimmer for the earlier wars.

I also get sick to my stomach, especially when I hear about the Youth of today thinking that oral sex is not REALLY sex. Or when I see people post in here about how 'getting a blow job' by a subordinate isn't that big of deal when in fact the issue is not that at all, it was the fact that a President committed perjury. Why do people continue to compare this to Bush lying? It comes across as a person simply whining about Bush, it is no where near logical. Lying to a person, to the entire nation, is not a crime. Perjury is a crime. The context is legal, not moral.

Is Bush a good leader? My opinion is no. Is he a jerk? My opinion is yes. But we should all be trying to separate our opinion, which few care about, when presenting factual information. Many in this forum do not even try to disguise their emotional opinions and present them as truisms. Offering an opinion is fine, but mark it as such and do not expect anyone to consider it seriously. I always try to respect the other person’s opinion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that I respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

I'm only replying because you quoted me, so it looks like you're directing this at me.

Regarding the issue of who's party is the "war party" or not, I'm bored to tears with the whole "Left-vs-Right" smokescreen that is only used to distract TV viewers long enough to pitch them KFC or a Chevy Silverado commercial. There's a time and a place for semantic arguments about history, but not for me...not right now. Have fun with that, but I'm going to take a pass.

And my guess on why people minimize Clinton's perjury charge is because they already believe that all politicians lie. And then they view Clinton's lie in the context of what he lied about. Most rational people can understand a lie about a sexual indiscretion is not comparable to lying about WMD's in order to start a global conflict. And no, a BJ isn't sex, but it is cheating.

[Ephemeral]

Of course they are the 'war' party. Members of the Republican party right now are the only people who are asking for an escalation of the war in Iraq. Members of the Democratic party are not. By voting Democrat, you are showing you are against the war in Iraq. Whatever happened 40 years ago is pretty irrelevant to today's politics.

Sub said, "My main concern is that modern American culture has no respect for history..." I felt it was appropriate to reply with some history, sorry.
Additionally, did not Hilary just come out and say that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan? Her reasoning was that we might loss what progress we had made there? How can she come out with this position and justification in Afghanistan but take the opposite position with Iraq? Afghanistan is coming off it’s greatest poppy production in history (over 95% of all heroin made in the last 12 months came from poppies from Afghanistan). Is the theory that it is less dangerous to stay the course in Afghanistan vs. Iraq?

Sex with subordinate is bad I agree, but it happens all the time everywhere in the world. I think most people just didn't think it was a big deal considering how many people do it, and considering the real motivations for the Republicans to even bother investigating Clinton in the first place. Okay so he had some sex in the office and that's bad. But anyone with a brain knew the real reasons why the Republicans cared so much, and it was partisan politics. And it's stuff like that which sours the entire political system.
It's true Clinton did commit a crime, if we take your assumption that oral sex is actually sex. But then again, if that is considered an outright lie then it's pointless to compare Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relations with Bush's lies. I mean one guy just lied about some affair that at most affected his family and 1 person (Monica). The other guy's lies has killed tens of thousands so far and and wounded many more.

I must have been absent the day the principal came over the loud speaker in school and made the announcement, "BJ's are not sex" (taken from a comedian). For God's sake, how can you people say this kind of stuff? Perhaps none of you have been married and had your spouse giving blow jobs to other guys? It isn't sex? I like the definition Seinfeld had, 'sex is when the nipple makes it first appearance'. Blow jobs, hand jobs, tit-fucking, sticking it in your girlfriends ear, is sex. Ask any clergy, ask any lawyer, ask any parent, ask anyone who is married, if these are sex or not.

And you roll out the 'it happens all the time everywhere in the world. I think most people just didn't think it was a big deal considering how many people do it'? Come on, your debating is better than that. That kind of logic is clearly false. If we are going to allow each other to use this logic, than I say, 'hey, those tens of thousands of people dying in Iraq isn't a big deal considering how many people in Iraq do it'.

You call out that his lies have “killed tens of thousands so far and and wounded many more.” This is really factual? The vast majority of the death numbers you provide are those murdered by Iraqis, Sunni vs. Shiite. Is it not a leap to say that this is US’s fault? Legally speaking, setting up a situation in which someone dies is usually, at best, considered manslaughter. So if we were to put on trial a Sunni who actually shot and killed a Shiite, he gets off free and we charge Bush with the murder?

[Ephemeral]

I'm only replying because you quoted me, so it looks like you're directing this at me.
Regarding the issue of who's party is the "war party" or not, I'm bored to tears with the whole "Left-vs-Right" smokescreen that is only used to distract TV viewers long enough to pitch them KFC or a Chevy Silverado commercial. There's a time and a place for semantic arguments about history, but not for me...not right now. Have fun with that, but I'm going to take a pass.
And my guess on why people minimize Clinton's perjury charge is because they already believe that all politicians lie. And then they view Clinton's lie in the context of what he lied about. Most rational people can understand a lie about a sexual indiscretion is not comparable to lying about WMD's in order to start a global conflict. And no, a BJ isn't sex, but it is cheating.

I brought up the history based on your post making the good point on how history is the key that unlocks the future. Now it sounds like you do not care about history, I am confused.