Vermont Senate: Impeach the President

Now here's something to get steamed up about.
User avatar
Crazy Healer Lady
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3589
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: Mission, BC
Zodiac: Libra
Contact:

Post by Crazy Healer Lady » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:51 pm

I really didn't mind the fact that Clinton womanized. He is a good man, and so far as I could see, greatly benefitted the USA, but perhaps that is only because I watched the country's surplus shift quickly into debt when Bush came into power.

But I may be wrong. I have not taken the time to verse myself in Clinton's history.
Crazy Healer Lady
Health and happiness to you!

The purpose of a relationship is not to have another who might complete you, but to have another with whom you might share your completeness. -CWG

User avatar
morgana
Level 22
Level 22
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:42 am
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by morgana » Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:13 pm

Nah, you guys are both right. He was a good president, and his womanizing didn't interfere with his ability to be a good president. All in all, I think most of us would take him back in a heartbeat if he hadn't already had his 2 terms in office.
"Love like you've never been hurt."

User avatar
Lotus
Level 27
Level 27
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Zodiac: Aries
Contact:

Post by Lotus » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:18 pm

I have never cared about Clinton or his exploits. I'm not sure if he was guilty of sexual harrassment *scratches head* or if these were women on a drama bandwagon. Both options are sad and quite possible.
To me it seems that we have a polar opposite in presidents: One who loved women a bit too much and the other who does not love women at all (ie as we are just property).
IMO the guy with the insatible sexual apetite did less damage than Bush ever did. Its like a choice between an Miraku type guy or a sexist Naraku (yep, inuyasha reference).

BB
Lotus
I have not been the same since that house fell on my sister.

User avatar
Willow
Level 86
Level 86
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Willow » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:50 am

Yeah, Hilary is the one who has to live with the womanising. No one is perfect.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Dr. Seuss (1904 - 1991)

User avatar
davisherm
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: The Wood
Zodiac: Aries
Contact:

Post by davisherm » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:33 am

Kitsune wrote:Thank you for correcting me, Davisherm.
No problem. It's one of the fun things about American Media, and I'm sure Media everywhere, that we take the shocking and then scandalous and make it into news, even if it's not quite the whole truth. Granted, if they'd just come out and said, "President Clinton is being investigated for Sexual Harassment among other crimes." It would have been pretty devastating to his image. However, the moral majority would be outraged if it became apparent that he'd been cheating on his wife, and WITH AN INTERN! (Nevermind the fact that one our most cherished presidents had an affair with a very well known blonde and nobody says anything bad about it.)


Aside from his whole womanizing past, I think Clinton did a decent job as the President. He reduced the national deficit and we experienced a period of great economic growth. Minimum wage (at least in NY) went from $4.25 to $6.00 an hour in the span of four years and the price of gas was under a buck. Now granted, one cannot credit or blame the status of the economy on one man or woman, but he was in charge, and things were good and Americans were not universally hated around the globe.

I'm not all smiles and rainbows for the man, though. I have some issues with the way Clinton handled the Military. Granted, he didn't pull us into anything like Gulf War 2.0 but we were mishandled a little bit. One of the reasons we have such a shortage of troops is that he did some serious cutbacks in the mid-nineties. This left us very shorthanded when we got pulled into a global war on terror that has fighting on multiple fronts and we had to call heavily on our Reservists and National Guardsmen. Which, of course, left us reeling when we needed them for disaster relief in the Gulf Coast. Domino effect and all that.

Of course, the other reason we have a severe lack of troops is because over 3,000 of them have bled their lives out in the desert and a good percentage of folks are not reenlisting at the end of their contract due to the deplorable way we've been treated under this administration. Let me tell you, the paltry pay raise we were all so excited about back in early 2001 doesn't give anywhere near enough for risking your life every day in under armored vehicles when you're not wearing body armor and you can't just shoot back at the guys shooting at you because you're afraid you'll be crucified as a murderer by the media when you're just defending yourself and your buddies.

I really need to get out of this topic now because I'm starting to get hot under the collar.

So many lives lost over such a stupid thing. A comma in the pages of history. A comma written in the blood of over 3,000 American Servicemen and women, hundreds of our allies, and I don't even want to look up the number of Iraqi deaths because I'm already disgusted enough.

November 2008 cannot come fast enough.
"I just want to play on my Panpipes..." Cake

User avatar
Kitsune
Level 70
Level 70
Posts: 2097
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada
Zodiac: Capricorn
Contact:

Post by Kitsune » Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:58 pm

Quite honestly, I think everybody in Canada had the same thought about Clinton...

"Cool, at least he's getting some. About time, I'd say..."

:lol:

Mind you, we would've had the same thought about our Prime Minister had he been caught doing the naughty.

I don't remember hearing about the Sexual Harrasment problem... Guess we Canadians were too caught up in the belief that if the president was finally a bit more open about sex, then perhaps the more conservative branches of the States would follow order. :lol: #-o
Trying to create a world, even in words, is good occupational therapy for lunatics who think they're God, and an excellent argument for Polytheism. -S.M. Stirling

http://www.bamatthews.comThe Writings and Musings of B.A. Matthews

User avatar
Ragnar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2820
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:26 pm
Location: Preußen (Deutschland).
Contact:

Post by Ragnar » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:21 pm

There is one thing that in the eyes of many people in Europe, particularly U.K, links all U.S presidents, they are garunteed to think they are stupid.

Whether they are or not, does not matter. The great unwashed will think that way, and the media will help them in that.

Personally I thought Clinton was great. I also liked Reagan.

User avatar
SageWolf
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:20 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by SageWolf » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:13 am

Clinton got our national debt 3/4 of the way paid off, then Bush comes into office and now we owe more on our debt then we ever did. Clinton was a good president, The thing he did wrong was lie when he said he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Hell we knew he did, but why lie to us, then when the Dress was found with stuff still attatched too it, he knew he was busted, IMO it was a set up all around, #1 why did she even keep the dress to begin with? If she was like any other normal woman, she would have had the dress cleaned and all evidance washed away. But no she kept it as it was (eww) and then it all went public. My guess is is that she saved it to blackmail him and he wouldn't pay her, she was expecting a free ride and didn't get one.

Anyway, I liked Clinton as a president, but if your gonna lie make sure all your basis are covered.

Hilary Clinton is running for president in the upcoming election, While I think it's a grand idea I don't think it is going to happen. In countries like Africa woman are subserviant to man, and if she is electiced into office, I fear that other countries won't listen to her, they will turn to Mr. First Lady to talk. And of course that won't go over well at all. When in 3rd world countries women are looked at like Chattel, and here she is trying to talk to a man, well they will take it as an insult. I think But I'm not sure, in Iraq and other such places you have to actually get permission from your husband to speak to another man. They don't look at it as being disrespectful it's just how they do things.

So all and all I think it would not be a good idea for her to be President.

I think Rudy Guilianini is going to be the next President of the United States.

I dunno. I'm not republician or democrat, I'm the one who waits to see where they are going and then decide. And I never voted for Bush. Although I did vote for Clinton.

Reagan wasnt' a too aweful bad president, But then again neither was Carter, I actaully like Carter, his Ideas tho really old fashioned to todays standards were the best yet, He is not a war monger, he preferrs peace and will do anything for peace.

SageWolf
To Error is Human, To really foul things up Requires a Computer.

unknown as far as I know

User avatar
Windwalker
Level 20
Level 20
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by Windwalker » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:47 am

Hold on, hold on... I was all ready to throw some confetti at the beginning of this thread, and then I read something about a third term and now I'm... confused and slightly scared....

Now, correct me if I'm wrong because American history doesn't much interest me... Didn't your original Superfriends write up in the constitution or How To Run A Country manual or whatever something about a president only being allowed to serve two terms? I seem to recall that it was to stop someone seizing power and becoming a dictator or president-for-life, and seemed like a jolly good idea to me. I always had the idea that the early Americans were a bit anti-permanent authority in a similar way to the Romans after they got rid of Tarquinus Superbus (best name ever).

Again, I know squat about the American legal system. All I know is that your system of voting defies logic. (How can someone who gets the most votes lose? When did that make sense?) But I do dimly remember something about two terms being, you know, IT. That's why we all have these fun countdowns on our web pages. Last election, the whole world turned on the CNN coverage and sat down with a bowl of popcorn, satisfied that the world would soon be put right again. As the day went on, our disbelief grew. Yes, Bush was voted in again, and the world sat stunned. Apparently, half the country hadn't voted, or something. But despite that there was the Light at the end of the Tunnel: there was no way that the guy could possibly be voted in again. He was OUT.

Please, please don't tell me that that Light is actually a Train....
si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

User avatar
SageWolf
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:20 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by SageWolf » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:34 am

I'll have to research but I think you can run again but you have to take 4 years off before you can run again, One of the Roseavelts I believe was in office for 14 years, Like I said I am not sure I'll have to research, I haven't been totally engrossed on American govenment, since I was in Jr High, Hey I'll wait till my kids get home and ask them LOL I know for a fact that my daughter is learning the branches and all that now.

Anyway I'll let you know, But no Bush can't run again for next term That much I do know.And Thank the Gods for small favors on that one eh?

On a slightly off subject note, Who here thinks that the war in Iraq will be a big issue on the others who are running for President? I know it will be but I'm wondering alot of people (like 90% of the US population) are against the war, it will be interesting to see what they promise to do when they get in office,

Oh yeah and on another note, My husband is ex Army, he was in Iraq for 21 months altogether, and we still have friends in the Army, well Funny they just extended the tour time, instead of max 1 year it's Max 15 months, isn't that a load of manure? So my friends who's husbands are going to Iraq this year will be gone for over a year. I'm mad as hell about that,

I'll explain it too you, If your over a year in Iraq you get like double what your getting paid, You have like a 2 week leway but if your lets say over at like 13 months they have to pay you more, and they have been doing that to alot of soldiers, keeping them over longer then they were suppose to be. So instead of sending them home on time like they should, they are extending thier tour time so they don't have to pay them any more then they have too. The soldiers are on a BS mission trying to stay alive over there, and they get screwed like this makes me mad, It's not fair to them at all. They have also cut their pay. I know from first hand knowledge, I was on the phone with my husband while he was in Iraq and the Air raid sirens went off, they were being Mortor Blasted. They are fighting for their lives. And now they have to do it for longer. Oh and another thing, they extended their tour time, and they get a whole 2 days extra of leave time, That means they get a full 2 weeks and 2 days of leave time while they have to be there for 15 months, They could have at least given them a full 3 weeks.

End Rant I think.

SageWolf
To Error is Human, To really foul things up Requires a Computer.

unknown as far as I know

User avatar
Crazy Healer Lady
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3589
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: Mission, BC
Zodiac: Libra
Contact:

Post by Crazy Healer Lady » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:38 am

Votes count in an election with Bush?? Where did you hear such rubbish??!! Don't you know that the votes from the ghettos of the country get LOST? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Presidents can only serve 2 terms. BUT there are certain loopholes you can worm through in "Times of Crisis," which our friend GWB is so fond of creating...
Crazy Healer Lady
Health and happiness to you!

The purpose of a relationship is not to have another who might complete you, but to have another with whom you might share your completeness. -CWG

User avatar
SageWolf
Level 24
Level 24
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:20 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by SageWolf » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:52 am

Funny thing CHL it's his Crisis not ours,

That sounded bad, but the thing is is HE made it this way, and even though we tried to stop him he went ahead and did it anyway.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I really would hate to see what his Karma looks like. And another thing How can he sleep at night?

Anyway He made his bed, he now has to lie in it.

I support our troops because they are only following orders that they must, I don't support the US government, I don't support Bush either.

sageWolf
To Error is Human, To really foul things up Requires a Computer.

unknown as far as I know

User avatar
davisherm
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 977
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: The Wood
Zodiac: Aries
Contact:

Post by davisherm » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:39 am

Fear not:

While FDR did get elected four times, it can't happen anymore.

Amendment XXII:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Of course, he could try some outlandish proposal to remove it, but it's pretty securely written. And it was proposed by his own party, so I don't think it would go over very well.


The only American President to serve more than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, back in the 1930's and into the 40's. His reasoning was that he'd gotten us through the great depression and he'd pull us through WWII the same way. The whole, "You don't change horses mid stream" attitude.

George Washington set the standard for only serving two terms and it was kind of an unwritten rule until Roosevelt broke it. The opposition scrambled and gave him a rough time during his campaign, but he won it. And he ran for a fourth term and won that too. He died only a few months into his fourth term. Shortly after that, the Republicans introduced legislation to create a new amendment to the Constitution, restricting Presidents to just two four year elected terms.


Now as far as the candidate with the most votes losing the race... Al Gore won the popular vote. This means that the majority of Americans wanted him to be the president. However, GW won the Electoral vote... which was created many many moons ago to serve as a way of diluting the impact of high population areas that have different concerns than the rest of the nation. This prevents the candidates from appealing more to one or two large groups than to the nation as a whole and then getting elected based on serving just the heavily populated areas. In theory, it's a good idea. Obviously in practice, the Electoral College doesn't always represent the true interests of the nation. Which sucks.
"I just want to play on my Panpipes..." Cake

User avatar
Willow
Level 86
Level 86
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Willow » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:24 am

I like that idea, if I am not mistaken they were spposed to do the same thing in ancient Rome.

I really believe tha power can corrupt. The only problem is that in Canada we have governments that conflict so much that great programs initated by one are often soon cancelled by the next government (read unversal day care).

100 dollars a month, I wish Stephen would realise that barely pays for anything when it comes to daycare.

OK, need to calm down, this issue gets me fired up.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Dr. Seuss (1904 - 1991)

Lucus Rose
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: New Jersey, US
Contact:

Post by Lucus Rose » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:20 am

SageWolf wrote: I support our troops because they are only following orders that they must, I don't support the US government, I don't support Bush either.

sageWolf
I believe there is something called an illeagal order which the troops should not follow and actually they are enjoined by military law from following. Lt. Watada tried this defense and the judge ultimately declared a mistrial, supposedly due to a technicality, but really because it would have been obvious to everyone watching when he was convicted anyway that the military will only pay lip service to its own rules when it suits them.

Lucus

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests