|
|
| Author |
Message |
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Guest
|
 Posted: 10/22/04 - 22:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
ha ha!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 10/22/04 - 23:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | ha ha!
|
Introspection on yourself again...eh Jack?
Is that the lonely kid inside you crying?
Oh well, not like we really care about you anyways.
ha ha!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 00:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | ha ha!
|
Are you celebrating the suppression of free speech? I thought "speech" was a liberal key term like "choice" and "education". Oh, nevermind. I forgot that when liberals say "free speech" they mean "so long as it's leftist".
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 13:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
Its a propaganda peice, its not news and so shouldnt be run as a news program. It should be paid programming. Has nothing to do with freedom of speech, its about equal time. I think its fine to run it on the internet like this.
Its just another attempt to discredit Kerry and get more votes for Bush to be sure he wins. Its politics! duhhhh!
If it was a true news peice, they would be showing both sides of this issue and examining it in a journalistic style. Its a totally one sided Op Ed all wrapped up in patriotic music and flags and old men wrapped in their medals pulling on peoples' heartstrings. There is no journalism there.
I am sure that they served honorably and deserve their medals etc etc. but there is another side to this dirty little war that some like to sweep under the table.
btw, I watched this little piece with 2 viet nam vets, one disabled. They see it as denial for what really happened there. They feel the government betrayed them, not any protestors. Apparently there are two ways to view this. "Individual experiences may vary."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 13:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frehya wrote: | Its a propaganda peice, its not news and so shouldnt be run as a news program. It should be paid programming. Has nothing to do with freedom of speech, its about equal time. I think its fine to run it on the internet like this.
Its just another attempt to discredit Kerry and get more votes for Bush to be sure he wins. Its politics! duhhhh!
If it was a true news peice, they would be showing both sides of this issue and examining it in a journalistic style. Its a totally one sided Op Ed all wrapped up in patriotic music and flags and old men wrapped in their medals pulling on peoples' heartstrings. There is no journalism there.
I am sure that they served honorably and deserve their medals etc etc. but there is another side to this dirty little war that some like to sweep under the table.
btw, I watched this little piece with 2 viet nam vets, one disabled. They see it as denial for what really happened there. They feel the government betrayed them, not any protestors. Apparently there are two ways to view this. "Individual experiences may vary." |
It wasn't purported to be a news piece, but a documentary. Democrats are even suing so that it can't be shown in theaters. Ironic, since they never complained about F911.
As for equal time, explain this movie which was aired on "public airwaves" in 1983: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085404/. It was an anti-Reagan propaganda film. Also explain news reporting like Dan Rather's falsified documents. Not only did they try to guise fake documents as reputable news, but the guy is even still on the air.
I wonder if you would complain if someone were to air F911.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | ha ha!
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1094040125318271.xml
Anger and anguish in the voices from Vietnam
MANY VETERANS CAME BACK FROM VIETNAM EMBITTERED ABOUT HOW THE WAR WAS FOUGHT, HOW LEADERSHIP HAD FAILED, HOW POLITICAL PRESSURES RESULTED IN A MONOTONOUS MANTRA OF "WE NEED A BODY COUNT."
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
IN MY OPINION Robin G. Henderson
Angry voices brand a presidential candidate as disloyal, inconsistent and hostile to combat veterans because 30 years ago he spoke out against the Vietnam War. I've heard those voices before. And I know the sentiments they express are no different from those held by many other veterans who went to Vietnam and fought bravely.
I know because from 1977 to 1996 I provided psychiatric examinations to veterans for the Veterans Administration in Portland. When Vietnam vets sought treatment in 1978, the Veterans Administration authorized examining psychiatrists like me to assess post-traumatic stress disorder. I listened to what combat soldiers experienced and how they felt after being unable to bury their memories. I interviewed more than 1,500 of them.
My mandate was to separate exaggerated claims of exposure to death and killing from the real thing. But I couldn't dismiss the stories that seemed over the top. I heard the same histories too many times, including accounts of atrocities.
Wrenching interviews sometimes concluded in confessions. Some soldiers insisted they felt as if they no longer had a soul. Sometimes they revealed pre-existing problems. But more often, the story was of a naive young man driven by idealism to fight for freedom.
Many veterans came back from Vietnam embittered about how the war was fought, how leadership had failed, how political pressures resulted in a monotonous mantra of "we need a body count."
Field commanders looked the other way as they turned loose men barely out of their teens to "inspect" villages for Viet Cong. These sorties sometimes occurred within days of a disastrous ambush in which combat buddies had been blown away.
Repeatedly, soldiers told me that the atrocities of My Lai were the tip of the iceberg, and its official focus was a smokescreen.
I interviewed veterans who had been spit on as baby killers. They learned to hide their pasts. Many of these men could tolerate no criticism of the Vietnam conflict. They felt that any questioning of the value of their combat discredited their sacrifices. Any notion that their trauma, and the aggressive acts inherent in combat, had occurred for no good reason was simply intolerable. They complained that politicians "didn't let us finish the job." They needed their suffering to have served a purpose.
Today, what I find indecent and callously manipulative is when political operatives cynically take advantage of these dynamics. Frayed spirits should not be exploited. They shouldn't be used to leverage a partisan political battle or for character assassination.
A presidential candidate is branded as disloyal for speaking his mind after his own disillusionment. He said what I heard hundreds of times, but he said it publicly where it could affect policy.
I empathize with the anguish that many veterans must feel witnessing this confrontation among those who served and did so bravely. But the political battle leaves me dismayed, questioning if democracy and our political process is in trouble. Can we bring common sense and decency to political discussion?
A soldier's fog of war may become the fodder for decades of nightmares and worse. Debate about securing medical benefits for veterans would be more relevant and respectful of veterans' sacrifices -- and those of current soldiers.
Robin G. Henderson is a psychiatrist with a private practice in Portland. He served as a part-time consultant to the Veterans Administration from 1977 to 1996.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
why bother Frehya?
the Republicans are re-writing history and people have forgotten the truth of vietnam.
and the d*****s posters here live on biasd nazi sound bites with out ever learning the truth.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frehya wrote: | http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1094040125318271.xml
Anger and anguish in the voices from Vietnam
MANY VETERANS CAME BACK FROM VIETNAM EMBITTERED ABOUT HOW THE WAR WAS FOUGHT, HOW LEADERSHIP HAD FAILED, HOW POLITICAL PRESSURES RESULTED IN A MONOTONOUS MANTRA OF "WE NEED A BODY COUNT."
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
IN MY OPINION Robin G. Henderson
Angry voices brand a presidential candidate as disloyal, inconsistent and hostile to combat veterans because 30 years ago he spoke out against the Vietnam War. I've heard those voices before. And I know the sentiments they express are no different from those held by many other veterans who went to Vietnam and fought bravely.
I know because from 1977 to 1996 I provided psychiatric examinations to veterans for the Veterans Administration in Portland. When Vietnam vets sought treatment in 1978, the Veterans Administration authorized examining psychiatrists like me to assess post-traumatic stress disorder. I listened to what combat soldiers experienced and how they felt after being unable to bury their memories. I interviewed more than 1,500 of them.
My mandate was to separate exaggerated claims of exposure to death and killing from the real thing. But I couldn't dismiss the stories that seemed over the top. I heard the same histories too many times, including accounts of atrocities.
Wrenching interviews sometimes concluded in confessions. Some soldiers insisted they felt as if they no longer had a soul. Sometimes they revealed pre-existing problems. But more often, the story was of a naive young man driven by idealism to fight for freedom.
Many veterans came back from Vietnam embittered about how the war was fought, how leadership had failed, how political pressures resulted in a monotonous mantra of "we need a body count."
Field commanders looked the other way as they turned loose men barely out of their teens to "inspect" villages for Viet Cong. These sorties sometimes occurred within days of a disastrous ambush in which combat buddies had been blown away.
Repeatedly, soldiers told me that the atrocities of My Lai were the tip of the iceberg, and its official focus was a smokescreen.
I interviewed veterans who had been spit on as baby killers. They learned to hide their pasts. Many of these men could tolerate no criticism of the Vietnam conflict. They felt that any questioning of the value of their combat discredited their sacrifices. Any notion that their trauma, and the aggressive acts inherent in combat, had occurred for no good reason was simply intolerable. They complained that politicians "didn't let us finish the job." They needed their suffering to have served a purpose.
Today, what I find indecent and callously manipulative is when political operatives cynically take advantage of these dynamics. Frayed spirits should not be exploited. They shouldn't be used to leverage a partisan political battle or for character assassination.
A presidential candidate is branded as disloyal for speaking his mind after his own disillusionment. He said what I heard hundreds of times, but he said it publicly where it could affect policy.
I empathize with the anguish that many veterans must feel witnessing this confrontation among those who served and did so bravely. But the political battle leaves me dismayed, questioning if democracy and our political process is in trouble. Can we bring common sense and decency to political discussion?
A soldier's fog of war may become the fodder for decades of nightmares and worse. Debate about securing medical benefits for veterans would be more relevant and respectful of veterans' sacrifices -- and those of current soldiers.
Robin G. Henderson is a psychiatrist with a private practice in Portland. He served as a part-time consultant to the Veterans Administration from 1977 to 1996. |
Two things:
1) It was Kerry's people that spat on them and Nixon's people who honored them.
2) What relevance does some doctor who treated a small group of crazy vets have to this thread?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
see... see how the board retard chimes in?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Buckshot wrote: | | see... see how the board retard chimes in? |
You remind me of a monkey throwing feces at his zookeeper.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | see... see how the board retard chimes in? |
You remind me of a monkey throwing feces at his zookeeper. |
whatever d*****s
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Buckshot wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | see... see how the board retard chimes in? |
You remind me of a monkey throwing feces at his zookeeper. |
whatever d*****s |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 14:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | see... see how the board retard chimes in? |
You remind me of a monkey throwing feces at his zookeeper. |
whatever d*****s |
|
haha thanks!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 15:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Buckshot wrote: | | Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin. |
I've never stolen anything in my life...nice try at slander though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 15:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: |
Two things:
1) It was Kerry's people that spat on them and Nixon's people who honored them.
2) What relevance does some doctor who treated a small group of crazy vets have to this thread? |
when did relevance become a part of RP? I just threw that in because I could.
Nixon's people..... heh
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 15:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frehya wrote: | | Confused wrote: |
Two things:
1) It was Kerry's people that spat on them and Nixon's people who honored them.
2) What relevance does some doctor who treated a small group of crazy vets have to this thread? |
when did relevance become a part of RP? I just threw that in because I could.
Nixon's people..... heh |
Ironic how a president forced to resign was more infinitly more honorable than the left's candidate for the same office.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 15:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Docter wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin. |
I've never stolen anything in my life...nice try at slander though. |
LIAR
THIEF
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmobbin
( . )( . )'s Are Fun!
Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 1264
Location: Texas
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 16:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Buckshot wrote: | | Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin. |
I bought A char from someone, he was stolen by entrerri if i remember correctly and stripped, then the original pwner ofthe acct hepled me get it back. Me and Doc have been friends since b4 all that happened, he may have owned the acct b4 hand but didnt steal it back from me. His Ip's do not match any that i had recorded in regards to that issue.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 16:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: |
Ironic how a president forced to resign was more infinitly more honorable than the left's candidate for the same office. |
He wasnt forced to resign, he could have gone through the impeachment. in case your revisionist history has forgotten.....this is looking honorable alright........
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
( Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 18:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frehya wrote: | | Confused wrote: |
Ironic how a president forced to resign was more infinitly more honorable than the left's candidate for the same office. |
He wasnt forced to resign, he could have gone through the impeachment. in case your revisionist history has forgotten.....this is looking honorable alright........
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
( Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.) |
Leftist lies and propaganda. Nixon was framed.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 18:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | Frehya wrote: | | Confused wrote: |
Ironic how a president forced to resign was more infinitly more honorable than the left's candidate for the same office. |
He wasnt forced to resign, he could have gone through the impeachment. in case your revisionist history has forgotten.....this is looking honorable alright........
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
( Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.) |
Leftist lies and propaganda. Nixon was framed. |
He wasn't framed. He was guilty. He had the honor to resign, though. Clinton was guilty of the above crimes AND perjury but refused to resign. And yes, Nixon was forced to resign insomuch as a president can be.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 18:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: |
Leftist lies and propaganda. Nixon was framed. |
| confused wrote: | | He wasn't framed. He was guilty. He had the honor to resign, though. Clinton was guilty of the above crimes AND perjury but refused to resign. And yes, Nixon was forced to resign insomuch as a president can be. |
I dont see any honor in resigning. His balls were nailed to the wall and he knew it. He was allowed to resign to avoid impeachment and quite possibly jail. He got a gift being allowed to resign.
And Rennol... lol I hear the holocaust never happened either.
ahhh you rightist revisionists......
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 19:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frehya wrote: | | Rennol wrote: |
Leftist lies and propaganda. Nixon was framed. |
| confused wrote: | | He wasn't framed. He was guilty. He had the honor to resign, though. Clinton was guilty of the above crimes AND perjury but refused to resign. And yes, Nixon was forced to resign insomuch as a president can be. |
I dont see any honor in resigning. His balls were nailed to the wall and he knew it. He was allowed to resign to avoid impeachment and quite possibly jail. He got a gift being allowed to resign.
And Rennol... lol I hear the holocaust never happened either.
ahhh you rightist revisionists...... |
Rennol was joking. He's a leftist just like you.
Yes, there is honor in it. He didn't want to drag the presidency through the mud like Clinton did. And yes he still could face jail after resigning (though Ford pardoned him).
His actions weren't nearly as reprehensible as Clintons. He basically found out some friends of his committed a criminal act and tried to help them conceal it. It's an impeachable offense, but he was still honorable. He tried to help friends, was caught breaking the law in doing so, and accepted the repercussions.
Clinton committed a criminal act, tried to cover his own tracks, then lied about it under oath.
Kind of makes you wonder about leftists. Conservtives joined with leftists in proceedings to impeach Nixon. Leftists refused to impeach Clinton.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 20:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Kind of makes you wonder about leftists. Conservtives joined with leftists in proceedings to impeach Nixon. Leftists refused to impeach Clinton. |
Actually, it makes me wonder about the whole lot of them. I dont see that one side is more or less honorable than the other, they just manifest their honor and on occasion lack thereof, differently. Usually its democrats with their pants down and conservatives with their hands in the cookie jar.
politics = power games.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 21:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Buckshot wrote: | | Docter wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin. |
I've never stolen anything in my life...nice try at slander though. |
LIAR
THIEF |
Thanks Ish...now BS...err...Buckshot...eat your words with a nice big helping of STFU!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Buckshot
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 449
|
|
Posted: 10/23/04 - 21:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Docter wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | Docter wrote: | | Buckshot wrote: | | Doctor Storm Hole sold and then stole back a REQ character to ishmbobin. |
I've never stolen anything in my life...nice try at slander though. |
|
|
| | |
