Clinton.

**novacain** · 07-02-2002

Govtcheez
>>I hate that this keeps being brought up - you think he was the first president to have an affair? He's just the only one to get caught. I'm not defending him - what he did was wrong and gross<<

Like so many you miss the point. It was not that Clinton had an affair with ML, big deal. (Both the Kennedy's had affairs with Monroe). It was that under oath he lied (perjury) to protect himself from prosecution (in the Flower case, along with others). He used his reputation as president and a good family man to deny the allegations of sexual misconduct (rape). The acquittal in this case stopped further prosecution in other cases.

What else would / did he do that was against the law and hurt others to protect his reputation?

Sayeh
>>Our job is not that of "band-aid" for the world. We've given trillions away and forgiven debts as big. And what do we get out of it? We're hated because our people live so well. Other countries are jealous. How can this be if we are the "infidel" or the "foreign devil"-- Sorry folks-- your way doesn't work. Ours does. Wake Up!

Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples of your way aren't they? You have to prop up, with tariffs, quotas and subsidies, your timber, steel and farming industries lest actual completion destroy them.
Remember you the US tax payer, homebuilder and consumer are paying to protect these big businesses from reality and a true global economy.

How come the terrorists are not attacking the UK, Europe or Australia only America?

>>and secondly, America is far cleaner than any other country out there.

That's why in Japan, the recycled waste (and waste water) is used to power, on reclaimed land, a free water playground.

The same waste in the US is burnt in incinerators.

>>It has been scientifically proven that stomach ulcers are the result of a virus.
Actually discovered by a friend of my family, Dr Warren and partner here in my home town. (AFAIK it is a bacteria)

No-one
Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was. He was tried for impeachment and found not guilty (as 2/3 majority was needed in a 50/50 mix of Dems and Reps).

>>now as Sayeh i shall retire from this crap.

Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and opinions (touted as facts) then leave, in case anybody refutes them.

I doubt you could justify one of the figures you quote with a single fact!

ygfperson
>>do you remove the fairly elected president from office because he slept with somebody?

No. But you do for criminal acts ie perjury, rape and fraud.
You can't have someone not born in the US as president but a liar and cheat is OK?

**no-one** · 07-02-2002

>Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples of your way aren't they?

these are not shining examples and they do not define us as a whole, stop acting like any mistake means we have accomplished nothing and have failed at everything, the system allows for peole to do wrong, people will do wrong, does this mean the govt. should controll our entire lives to prevent enron? NO!

>Remember you the US tax payer, homebuilder and consumer are paying to protect these big businesses from reality and a true global economy.

unfortunatly we don't get to choose where our tax dollar goes.

>Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was.

he was impeached by congress but not the senate so he was not removed from office.

>he was tried for impeachment and found not guilty (as 2/3 majority was needed in a 50/50 mix of Dems and Reps).

a congressional conviction/impeachment requires a simple majority vote,
he was convited of perjury and obstruction of justice. look it up.

>Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and opinions (touted as facts) then leave, in case anybody refutes them.

my opinions were not touted as facts if this is what you see then its your problem, they were not intended or implied as so.

99.9999% the number was ment to place emphasis, to bring added attention to the statement, get over it.

by some,
90+% of global warming is attributed to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a large factor.

and volcanos do produce that much polution,

and a great many estimate 40% of taxes are wasted,

so you if you don't like my facts you can :edit:.

watch some informative american news programs or read some non biased news or scientific reports...

::edit:: toned it down a bit... so as to allow for continured discussion.

**novacain** · 07-03-2002

No one

Clinton was tried for impeachment and aquitted, congress has nothing to do with it (apart from recommending that he stand trial). Note: Even the BBC got the legal procedure wrong in its reports.

from
http://www.planet101.com/impeachment_article.htm

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

I watch your news, CNN as well as the BBC and Australian BC news.

Could be you need a little less biased news service.

>>90+% of global warming is attributed by some to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a factor,

Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion'

**no-one** · 07-03-2002

>congress has nothing to do with it (apart from recommending that he stand trial).

wtf?

it doesn't happen without Congress.

Traditionally, the House(Congress), after drawing up and voting on articles of impeachment that specify the charges and their factual bases, assigns congressional "managers" (prosecutors) to present the case before the Senate.

also when the Congress Draws and Votes up the Articles Of Impeachment and they are passed, it is refered to as impeachment, or Congressional Impeachment.

>I watch your news, CNN as well as the BBC and Australian BC news.

CNN hah, BBC HAHA. thats non biased?

i've watched them both thanks and they are quite biased.

>Could be you need a little less biased news service.

Could be, but i doubt it, since use a great many.

>Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion

1. i didn't get this off the internet
2. these are relatively new estimates
3. greenies no like, info not wide spread.

4. do some reasearch on solar radiation and global warming or the solar climate change, and maybe you'll begin to grasp what im saying

try searching google for something like

'solar causes of global warming' or
'solar global warming' or
'solar climate change'

or something like that, you'll see what i mean...

some go as high as all of the global temperate change can be attributed to this, some estimate more volcanic influences...

most are old and keep i relatively low at around 40%, these are new numbers, you'll hear about it eventually,

BTW: did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers.

so stop breaking my balls, over nothing. or something your not up on.

**minesweeper** · 07-03-2002

I love debates like this one, it makes me realise that England isn't the only country with a s*** government.

**novacain** · 07-03-2002

Did not think you could support it. Just as soon as someone dares mention the US in a less than favourable light and its off.

A bunch of patriots spouting propaganda, disinformation and misinformation. Defying all logic and discounting any truth.

No-one (posts unsubstansiated fact)
>>90+% of global warming is attributed by some to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a factor,

(wtf. The sun is responsible for global warming and the rest is natural! Why did it not happen eons before? Why the acceleration in the last 50 years?)

NovaCain (asks for source of info)
>> Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion'

No-one (tries to defend said misinformation)
>>1. i didn't get this off the internet
>>2. these are relatively new estimates
>>3. greenies no like, info not wide spread.

Ahh. New esimates which are incontraverable, not on the web and hidden by the all powerful evil greenies!

LOL

>>it is refered to as impeachment
Semantics.

Trial=impeachment
convicted=impeached
acquitted=??? (not impeached???)

Not to mention it is a fundamental of the Westminister system, that both of our governments are based on, that there is a seperation of government and judiciary. Which is clearly not the case here.

>>so stop breaking my balls, over nothing. or something your not up on.
Hang on a second, you are yet to post one FACT and I am not 'up on it'. You expect to spread this rubbish and not be asked to at least provide some info?

LOL

**Mario** · 07-03-2002

>> And with all due respect mario, you can't even spell anarchist correctly. You don't even know the difference between det-cord and fuse. stop pretending

I confess! My grasp of the English language is not that perfect. Shame on me. Now, for something completely different (remember?), if you pay a little more attention to details you will learn to things:

1. You show little knowledge of the things you say. I present facts with my statements, you tell us to go and search for them. How about that for pretending.

2. I'm not American neither am I living in US. So i can not and don't wish to test your arrest theory... not that what you say is different from any other country on this world. You argument is rather mute.

**Mario** · 07-03-2002

>> BTW: did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers.

You really have to decide whether you trust scientists or not. To smack on the scientific community disregarding all their findings as rubbish, only to then backup your arguments by quoting the scientific community that doesn't share the same views, doesn't help your case.

The above is completely false. First, the 'most' adjective you use there. It's not most, but in fact is a tiny amount of scientists.
Second, the reasons behind that climate age change... maybe you should have keep reading your source and you would find out that they attribute this possible change as a possible effect of ... you got it! Global Warming.
And third, we are already on a warm age period. We are not moving in or out of it. Most scientists believe the global warming is dangerous and powerful but not in such a way that it would change climate to the extent you are talking about. The global warming effects and the reason they are so dangerous is because of its effects on wild life... especially plant life, the support for most life on earth.

**Clyde** · 07-03-2002

In my environemenal chemistry lectures we covered global warming, the change in co2 levels is undeniable.

"did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers"

We are not moving into an "inverse of an ice age", we are if anything moving towards an ice age, in fact man kinds activities have meant that the next ice age has been delayed.

But if we the ice caps keep melting, and they will if co2 levels remain high, eventually the volume of the ocean will reach a critical levels and we will be plunged into the coldest longest ice age.

We need to reduce global CO2 emmisions.

**ober** · 07-03-2002

Originally posted by Clyde
In my environemenal chemistry lectures we covered global warming, the change in co2 levels is undeniable.

"did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers"

We are not moving into an "inverse of an ice age", we are if anything moving towards an ice age, in fact man kinds activities have meant that the next ice age has been delayed.

But if we the ice caps keep melting, and they will if co2 levels remain high, eventually the volume of the ocean will reach a critical levels and we will be plunged into the coldest longest ice age.

We need to reduce global CO2 emmisions.

WTF does this have to do with Clinton?!?!!?!

Regardless, I believe Clinton infact WAS LEGALLY IMPEACHED. However there was something... maybe a 2/3 vote that they didn't get to pass it.

I think I'm right on this one, but don't quote me

Sayeh · 07-03-2002

From mario:
> 1. You show little knowledge of the things you say.
> I present facts with my statements, you tell us to
> go and search for them. How about that for pretending.

No, actually I have greater knowledge than most of you on the issue. I should not have to lead you by the balls to everwhere you should be going.

And as for facts-- why don't you try these, you stupid child. (I have put a link bibliography at the end so you can get more than you probably care to read):

--------------------

US Gov't Press Conference about Kyoto Protocol
===============================================
One of the very most stringent tests of the
validity of computer simulations of the climate
of the earth is based on the records from the
Arctic. According to computer forecasts, the
polar areas are very sensitive to global
warming. The forecasts say the polar region
should have warmed enough in the last 50 to
100 years to begin melting polar ice. Melting
polar ice would then produce positive feedback
that would amplify any warming already present.

However, radiosonde measurements that start in
the mid-1950s show that _no_ net warming has
occurred over the past several decades, which
contradicts the theoretical models by tree
huggers.

This includes measurements taken with satellites
and other observable phenomenon.

The greenhouse-induced warming just has not been
detectable in the Arctic either in the
troposhpere or at the surface over this 40-year
period.

Furthermore, it is not possible for the polar
caps to melt "rapidly" as the tree-huggers
suggest. A recent article in "Science" magazine
explains that the ice sheet is so stable that
the heat of climate warming, either natural or
man-made, would take _millenia_ to flow through
the ice to the underlying rockbed carrying the
ice.

Now, for stories we read in the papers on
increased hurricanes, increased blizzards,
destructive rainfall, butterfly extinctions,
glaciers melting in Glacier National Park-- these
are hyperbolic stories which have _no_
scientific basis whatsoever. In fact, temperatures
for Glacier National Park since 1895 (the last
100 years) show there has been _no_ summertime
warming that could cause those glaciers to retreat.
The warming that has occurred has been solely
natural.

The most important feature of this 100-year
temperature record is that _most_ of the warming
occurred before about 1940. But most of the
greenhouse gases from human activities entered the
atmosphere after 1940. That means most of the
temperature rise of the last 100 years that occurred
early in the century did not come from greenhouse gas
activities because it occurred before such gases
existed.

95% of the so-called "greenhouse gases" is water
vapor.

Excerpts from Article 2
(has lots of nice graph data)
=======================
It turns out that scientists have been able to carefully
test the hypothesis of global warming during the past 50
years - without relying on arguments that are based on
other hypotheses or on incompletely understood calculations.
During the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have risen by a large amount, while, simultaneously, precise
measurements of atmospheric temperatur have been made. These
measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric
greehouse warming of the atmosphere as predicted by proponents
of "global warming: is not taking place and is unlikely ever
to take place. In other words, global warming has failed
experimental test.

Excerpts from Article 3
========================
Apocalyptic visions, such as those conjured up by environmentalism,
have been made throughout Man's history and invariably turn out to be
false. They attract widespread interest principally for the reason
that bad news is more newsworthy than good news. Thus the prediction
of catastrophes due to global warming, even on very inconclusive
evidence, is likely to be treated with considerably more importance
than the prediction that things might not be so bad after all. By
contrast, the non-doomsday scenario demands far more evidence in order
to satisfy its critics.

...

In regard to global warming, about the only fact that is universally
agreed upon is that there has been an increase in "Greenhouse Gases",
particularly CO2, in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil
fuels. But, contrary to popular misconceptions, there is no consensus
on what the consequences of this will be. Before discussing those
consequences a number of further facts can be cited.

(1) All the greenhouse gases are produced in nature, as well as by
humans. To give one example, termites are responsible, annually, for
10 times the current world production of CO2 from burning fossil
fuels. [3]

(2) CO2 concentrations have varied widely in the geological past,
obviously, therefore, from before Man had any significant impact, or
even existed.

(3) The oceans act as a "sink" for CO2 and hold 60 times more of it
than does the atmosphere.

...

[Here is an example of tree huggers typically avoiding real
scientific facts in lieu of theoretical, made-up data- ed]

Another response to the observed lack of warming is that "the data
don't matter". Those very words were spoken by Chris Folland of the
United Kingdom Meteorological Office at a meeting of climatologists in
Asheville, North Carolina, on August 13, 1991. Shortly after that
Folland added:

"Besides, we're not basing our recommendations [for immediate
reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data; we're basing them upon
the climate models." [14]

-------------------------
And finally, I say to you, our weather forecasters can't even
predict the weather for a few hours ahead of a broadcast with *any*
accuracy-- how do you think _anyone_ can forecast it for the next
centure.

So, I say to you tree-huggers-- YOU GET _YOUR_ FACTS STRAIGHT.
I rely solely on scientific fact. You tree-huggers should try it.

Article Bibliography
--------------
1 http://www.ncpa.org/press/0929gwd.html
2 http://www.accesstoenergy.com/ate/9711/gwarmg.htm
3 http://www.libertarian.org/LA/globwarm.html

Sayeh · 07-03-2002

From Novacain--
---------------------
> Actually discovered by a friend of my family, Dr Warren and partner here in my home town. (AFAIK it is a bacteria)

Hey, I agree with you, thank you. I couldn't remember the word 'bacteria', all I could think of was virus or fungi. Bacteria is correct.

> Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples
> of your way aren't they?

Uh no. they came after my time. They are however shining examples of a failed liberal educational system. The educational system today is teaching incorrect MBA and ethics principals. That's why such tacts are taking place.

> Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was.
> Clinton was tried for impeachment and aquitted

No, Clinton was impeached, but never tried, so he could not have been acquitted. Get your facts straight.

Clinton was impeached on 2 of the 4 counts: Article 1 and Article 3. He was not tried by the Senate and he chose not to resign. You may visit this links for the actual data:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/eve...8000/238784.st

http://www.ourtimelines.com/zpcimp.html

> Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and
> opinions (touted as facts)

Uh, no. I've loaded my argument with facts and links you may peruse at will.

Shut your pie hole.

> Gore won the popular vote

No, using the rules prescribed by the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, Bush won by 493 votes.

That's one of the fundamental reasons America is not a _democracy_, it is a *REPUBLIC*. So we don't have "mob rule". the electoral college knew what was best for the people and made the right choice with Bush.

**Govtcheez** · 07-03-2002

I wasn't going to say anymore, because sayeh, you do know more than me (whether I believe most of it or not), but

> No, using the rules prescribed by the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, Bush won by 493 votes.

is outright wrong - Bush may have won Fla. by that many votes, but Gore won the nationwide popular vote (not that it means anything, since we are, as you've pointed out, a republic, and not a democracy).

**salvelinus** · 07-03-2002

Clinton was impeached by the House. Impeachment is similar to being indicted. House members acted as prosecutors, the Senate as jury. He was acquitted by the Senate.
Richard Nixon wasn't formally impeached, although he certainly would have been if he hadn't resigned first.
And Sayeh, you a playeh! You forgot that the real reason the feds broke in on Elian Gonzales and shipped him back to Cuba is that he was the love child of Clinton & Reno. They couldn't let that get out, so hello, Castro! And Senator Jeffers in Vermont was forced to quit the Republican party when Clinton blackmailed him with compromising photos of Jeffers, Gary Condit and Chandra Levy. And did you know that Clinton secretly redid the White House pool in the shape of a pentagram and painted it black? Aides are forbidden to confirm they heard screams from there every solstice.
And is it a coincidence that Clinton was in Colorado and Arizona just before the big fires started? Only a fool can't see the connection.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks... and it's fact!

**Mario** · 07-03-2002

>> And as for facts [...] US Gov't Press Conference about Kyoto Protocol

Err... You better get your facts straight, LOL! I never mentioned the Kyoto Protocol, even once. I was talking about Carter and Clinton. You are funny...

>> why don't you try these, you stupid child

Hey! Great! You just made it easier on me. It was nice talking with you. Bye