People need to stop hating on U.S. Citezens

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, the articles of impeachment cited by those on the judiciary commitee that brought them forward never cited him lying in teh Lewinsky case. They cited thousands of pages of documentation that started with Paula Jones and ended with Monica Lewinsky. However, teh the impeachment charges started with an accusation by the commitee over his tesitmony in the Jones case. Again....nothing that happened in the oval office. And....again....nothing he did in teh oval office. If you want to cite the findings of the commitee, then you should cite the charges of rape...not of lying under oath.

On the flip side of all that, should I list the MULTIPLE incidents of Bush lying while in office? Or cheney? Or Rumsfeld? Or should I just cite the ones where Bush lied under oath? However, since the Republican party has controlled both houses and the white house for the last six years resulting in Bush never having been sworn in, should I only cite the ones where Bush has lied while in office, enjoying the invulnerablity provided by the legislative branch?

Or should we just discuss how the american president isn't obligated to tell teh truth to the American people...about how he or she runs the government? (As opposed to who they ****?)

Either I've gone completely insane, we're talking about two completely different subjects or Clinton was impeached for perjury/obstruction of justice which arose for the Monica scandal and not for the actual acts of a B.J., rimjob and cigartube insertion.

Cite anything you like, I did not vote for Bush either time... But I do promise you, you'll have a very hard time pinning anything illegal on Bush and Co. thatwill stick.

Originally posted by Robtard
Either I've gone completely insane, we're talking about two completely different subjects or Clinton was impeached for perjury/obstruction of justice which arose for the Monica scandal and not for the actual acts of a B.J., rimjob and cigar insertion.

Okay, you're insane.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cite anything you like, I did not vote for Bush either time... But I do promise you, you'll have a very hard time pinning anything illegal on Bush and Co. thatwill stick.

I've not quoted anything that would "stick" to Bush. We've not been talking about Bush, have we? However, despite my total belief that the documentation exists, I don't think Bush will ever be impeached or held accountable. In fact, this is one administration (in modern times) where documentaion of their failures have been evident and easily refferenced, but not easily called into qestion.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh I'm not saying my opinion means anything. I'm just somewhat perplexed at the U.S. public in general, a furore over Presidential sexual relations, conversely a relatively demure response to what would objectively constitute lying to the public in order to create false pretenses to initiate a war.

I know Bush's approval ratings are dismal, but the fact is when asked, around 40% of the U.S. public still approve of his performance. It may simply be a misperception but to the external observer it seems many U.S. citizens feel the need to support their Commander-in-Chief regardless of how completely inept he and his administration perform; and hold the view that to criticize one's government is to be unpatriotic, as if patriotism supersedes democracy.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Why was the investigation started in the first place?

Originally posted by Robtard
In the end though, Clinton was impeached for saying(lying) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" among other things while under oath and not for the actual act(s) of sex; oral of otherwise. That is the point.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I've not quoted anything that would "stick" to Bush. We've not been talking about Bush, have we? However, despite my total belief that the documentation exists, I don't think Bush will ever be impeached or held accountable. In fact, this is one administration (in modern times) where documentaion of their failures have been evident and easily refferenced, but not easily called into qestion.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, you're insane.

I've not quoted anything that would "stick" to Bush. We've not been talking about Bush, have we? However, despite my total belief that the documentation exists, I don't think Bush will ever be impeached or held accountable. In fact, this is one administration (in modern times) where documentaion of their failures have been evident and easily refferenced, but not easily called into qestion.

I know it's Wiki, but I am too tired to look up other sources...

"President Bill Clinton was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives and subsequently acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice , arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Initially I wasn't talking about Bush, you're the one that keep bringing him up and you did question me if you should bring up the times Bush and Co. have lied for discussion. Also brings up another of my points, thinking/knowing he lied and proving he lied are totally separate.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know it's Wiki, but I am too tired to look up other sources...

"President Bill Clinton [B]was impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives and subsequently acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges were perjury and obstruction of justice , arising from the Lewinsky scandal. After a 21-day trial, the Senate vote fell short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office under the Constitution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Initially I wasn't talking about Bush, you're the one that keep bringing him up and you did question me if you should bring up the times Bush and Co. have lied for discussion. Also brings up another of my points, thinking/knowing he lied and proving he lied are totally separate. [/B]

Nope. I asked you if you wanted me to bring up the number of times Bush lied v. the indictments leveled against Clinto in his impeachment proceedings.

.the allegations contained in the Starr report, all lent the necessary momentum. Thus the process moved forward and Clinton became only the third U.S. President to be seriously faced with the threat of impeachment. On October 8, the House of Representatives voted 258-176 to authorize an open-ended impeachment inquiry,

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

This is where I got the quote above. Many others provide one unwavering reality; that Clinton's impeachment started with Jones and ended in a non-specific vote to begin proceedings based on the Starr report...which began with Jones and ended with Lewisnsky. None of whic was a true assesment of his ability to be president.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Nope. I asked you if you wanted me to bring up the number of times Bush lied v. the indictments leveled against Clinto in his impeachment proceedings.

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

This is where I got the quote above. Many others provide one unwavering reality; that Clinton's impeachment started with Jones and ended in a non-specific vote to begin proceedings based on the Starr report...which began with Jones and ended with Lewisnsky. None of whic was a true assesment of his ability to be president.

Listen, I liked Bill Clinton, I voted for the guy and I thought the Monica-Gate scandal was complete B.S., I personally don't care that he lied while under oath in this case because I strongly feel he should have never been asked about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky in the first place. But what I feel is irrelevant, the fact remains that in the end, he was impeached for lying under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice and not for the sexual acts he committed.

Kennedy was screwing around openly during his term, yet he is seen as one of the greatest American Presidents.

Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, I liked Bill Clinton, I voted for the guy and I thought the Monica-Gate scandal was complete B.S., I personally don't care that he lied while under oath in this case because I strongly feel he should have never been asked about his sexual relationship with Lewinsky in the first place. But what I feel is irrelevant, the fact remains that in the end, he was impeached for lying under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice and not for the sexual acts he committed.

Kennedy was screwing around openly during his term, yet he is seen as one of the greatest American Presidents.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

This is where I got the quote above. Many others provide one unwavering reality; that Clinton's impeachment started with Jones and ended in a non-specific vote to begin proceedings based on the Starr report...which began with Jones and ended with Lewisnsky. None of whic was a true assesment of his ability to be president.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bush's loophole here would be, Iraq was/is a haven/breeding ground for Al Qaida and other terrorist groups among other things.

Originally posted by Blax X
In my opinion, people need to stop hating on us so much...

I'm not saying don't hate the government and all that jazz, 'cause yeah our governments corrupt and greedy, but so is all the other countries governments, and I don't think it's fair that the actual CITIZENS of the country should have to be persecuted because of it.

I spent about the last half hour getting bashed by people from the UK and Canada on a different forum because I said that I was American.

me and my friend got bashed and banned from a UK server on an on-line game, because when asked what country we were from, we replied that we were Americans.

It really is unfair that the people of a country should have to suffer because of something their government is doing. I'm not fighting in Iraq, hell I don't even support the war. I have relatives in every major part of the world, and because of that I don't hate any race or country, so why should I and my friends have to endure idiots who feel the need to tell me about how crappy and dirty and ignorant I am, and how spoiled and cruel I am, how I'm such a dirty American whose days are numbered. It really is pissing me off, and if any of you who read this fit the category who do the things I mentioned, I recommend that you lay off.

I would just say people need to stop been so ANGRY at everything. It's always Americans vs. Europeans. When it reality is Idiots vs. Idiots. Besides, people going around trying to blame something are most likely to have even bigger issues or larger egos than an average person.

i think anger towards u.s. citizens is blown way out of proportion. i was recently in montreal and was told by many that i would catch all kinds of shit just for being american. not true at all. im sure there are assholes all over who would be rude to people just for where they're from, but the exageration of their numbers is ridiculous.

In my personal opinion, any one that lies under oath should be removed from office and possible jail time for it and especially those in political office. They should be held to a higher standard and suffer more of a punishment for their actions, and the president especially for they are the head law official and commander and chief.

Originally posted by ThePittman
They should be held to a higher standard and suffer more of a punishment for their actions

Originally posted by Blax X
In my opinion, people need to stop hating on us so much...

I'm not saying don't hate the government and all that jazz, 'cause yeah our governments corrupt and greedy, but so is all the other countries governments, and I don't think it's fair that the actual CITIZENS of the country should have to be persecuted because of it.

I spent about the last half hour getting bashed by people from the UK and Canada on a different forum because I said that I was American.

me and my friend got bashed and banned from a UK server on an on-line game, because when asked what country we were from, we replied that we were Americans.

It really is unfair that the people of a country should have to suffer because of something their government is doing. I'm not fighting in Iraq, hell I don't even support the war. I have relatives in every major part of the world, and because of that I don't hate any race or country, so why should I and my friends have to endure idiots who feel the need to tell me about how crappy and dirty and ignorant I am, and how spoiled and cruel I am, how I'm such a dirty American whose days are numbered. It really is pissing me off, and if any of you who read this fit the category who do the things I mentioned, I recommend that you lay off.

Why, oh why, did you have to make this thread???? It's like dropping a dead cricket in an aquarium of piranas.

Originally posted by botankus
Why, oh why, did you have to make this thread???? It's like dropping a dead cricket in an aquarium of piranas.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I think a Goldfish would have been a better analogy. 😉

The dead cricket fits the analogy better. I'm keeping him.

Originally posted by Strangelove
if it's an aquarium full of pirahnas, why are we starving them with just goldfish? Throw a bass in there, for the pirahnas' sakes! oh

im pretty sure that the plural of piranha is piranha