Thanks, thanks, and thanks. I usually avoid these threads because they are often rantfests and it takes too much time replying to everyone, but occasionally there are those that need to be replied to.

I think he meant the impeachment process atleast that's what i figured he meant.

I could of swore he was centured in the congress too, but can't find any record of it, guess it was just a threat, the whole scandal didn't really interest me so i didn't pay much attention to it, well when it wasn't shoved down my throat.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always assumed it was likely that over half the presidents of the US have cheated on their wives, they just hadn't been caught because the press used to cover up things like that for the president.

Ah, I see.  Since he did such a great job explaining these facts and reasonings, why don't you reiterate them for us in one consise post so that we can review these facts?

Naturally I don't expect you to actually respond and do this as you will be setting yourself up for a logical and verbal thrashing.

Sarcasm aside, the facts presented were not presented objectively nor within context.  I probably don't disagree with you on several political issues, but the methods used to display these issues are dirtier than the politicians themselves.

Dirtier than a politician? Ouch, crashman, double ouch. I may have given a couple people a bit more of a thrashing than they deserved but two key pet peeves of mine are debating from a base of ignorance and trying to debate me over a point I never made (especially with incorrect facts).  I'm trying to figure out what wasn't presented objectively (did the 2001 recession not start in 2000? did Bush not get a majority of the vote in 2004? did Clinton not remain in office despite being impeached for perjury?) but then I suppose objectivity is somewhat subjective.

@kaz
That may have been what he meant but I can only debate what he said not what I think he meant. Clinton wasn't impeached becasue of the sex, he was impeached because he committed perjury by lying about it to a grand jury.

The grand jury called because of a law clinton had passed that allowed a woman who accused someone of sexual harrassment to drag anyone and anything before a grand jury. Paula Jones, one of the many women who was claiming Clinton harrassed her, had him and Monica dragged before a grand jury to establish that Clinton was adulterous as part of her case and he lied about it.

If not for the lawbreaking there wouldn't have been any impeachment. After all it was already well known that Clinton wasn't faithful to Hillary even as president but it wasn't until the perjury came up that impeachment started.

As for the censure, it was dropped. I recall the Democrats were claiming that they would rather censure than remove Clinton (he had alrady been impeached) but after he was acquitted the whole matter was forgotten.  Here's the info about http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SE00044:@@@L&summ2=m& that last ampersand is supposed to be in there but I can't get it to be part of the link. (EDIT: nevermind, it works anyways).

I don't mean to argue over something a decade old that is largely off topic but it is frequently said (including in this thread) that Clinton was impeached over sex, but it's not true.  Which is also another reason I tend to stay away from these threads, I'm compelled to correct even off topic statements which are many in political threads.

Actually Bush won his 2nd presidential election with 50.7% of the popular vote and 286 of the Electoral Votes vs. John Kerry's 251.

@albionus

The main issue for me is that you brought up the fact that Clinton received less percentage of the popular vote in 92 than bush did in 00. What was the reason for brining this up if not as an attack or comparison between the two presidents.

In 92 Clinton got a larger percentage of the popular vote than any other candidate, not so for Bush in 00, which is a much more telling statistic than comparing their actual percentages. For example, what was a closer Football game score 41-42 or 17-0. I think you can understand the analogy.

You need context with facts otherwise facts are meaningless. This is why I take issue, and the comparison you drew is spin heavy. You woulnd't have mentioned the numbers if not to make a point.

The fact of the matter is that the republicans were gunning for Clinton well before the impeachment. Do you remember Whitewater?

That was the issue with me also.

What albionus was simply trying to state was that Bill Clinton wasn't that popular, in respect to helping Hillary in her campaign. He was just trying to make the point that Bill Clinton's popularity might be a little exaggerated by some. He wasn't trying to debate who had a "better or worse" election GW Bush or Bill Clinton. In that respect I think he used the proper context.

Correct me if I am wrong albionus.

Actually i'd say he got impeached because the republicans didn't like him and did it mostly for polticial gain, which obviously backfired. They tried to shame the democratic base but instead in backfired on them because it made them just look vindicitive.

If it had been a republican candidate the impeachment process wouldn't of went through because they would of already known the votes wern't there to convict well and they likely wouldn't of wanted to shame there own party.

That's the kind of process you definitly don't go through unless you know you have the votes or you have an alterior political motive.

Otherwise you are just needlessly damaging the head of your countrys reputation.

Kaz,

I'd have to disagree with you on this. Clinton got impeached because he broke the law. He was testifying under oath, and lied. If you or I do that, we would be in big trouble. He was proved to have commited a crime.

Any president proven to have commited a crime no matter how big or small should get tossed. We need to hold our leaders to at least the standard that they not be criminals.

I forget the VP, but he got tossed for failing to pay all of his taxes. I don't care if he cheated on his wife and I don't care about him being a Dem, I care about him trying to be above the laws we all have to live by.

I don't doubt other politicians have broke the law, but Clinton got caught red handed, and others can at least maintain their innocence unless evidence is presented.