Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   POLL: Of all post WW2 prez's, who performed worst? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/240361-poll-all-post-ww2-prezs-who-performed-worst.html)

Mulhollanddose 09-12-2005 09:22 PM

Make me a sammich!

stevepaa 09-12-2005 09:32 PM

So exactly what convictions and jail terms can you point to? Still waiting. I'd like to compare to the list I made. Anything more than fines?

Mulhollanddose 09-12-2005 09:48 PM

I ask myself that everyday...Why aren't Hillary and Bill in prison?

This is a question we should all ask ourselves.

stevepaa 09-12-2005 09:57 PM

Hey, I think he was a scumbag too for the things he did. My point was that the Nixon administration was worse in its effect on the US structure and people's expectations of the White House occupant and the convictions were made possible by the general abhorrence of what was done in the Nixon White House. We all felt betrayed for supporting Nixon.

With Clinton, it was a personal failing and stupidity. His abuse of Presidential power did not rise to the level of Nixon.

Mulhollanddose 09-12-2005 10:06 PM

It certainly did..only worse...Bill Clinton thought it very important to sign the anti-sexual harassment law...He signed it and it became his own noose...He cost the taxpayers millions and committed crimes (cover-up) in the process...Nixon's crime was only the coverup, there was no difference between Nixon and Clinton, other than Clinton getting away with it.

Do you buy the Clinton line that they did not know how 900 FBI files on their political enemies got into the WhiteHouse?...I would offer you a bridge for a bargain, but apparently you have already bought one.

stevepaa 09-13-2005 07:01 AM

Man, I really can't believe you believe that. The magnitude of the crimes and convictions in the Nixon WH is not comparable to a fine. You keep saying crimes, but without convictions they are just accusations. Nixon also cost the taxpayers millions. The mere fact that a pardon was necessary for Nixon should be self evident that his crimes were of greater magnitude.

Mulhollanddose 09-13-2005 08:57 AM

The mere fact that Clinton HIMSELF pardoned a crime partner, Susan McDougal, suggests criminality -- Susan McDougal was imprisoned for not answering questions about the Clinton's dirty dealings in the land scam in Arkansas.

Quote:

You keep saying crimes, but without convictions they are just accusations.
What crimes was Nixon charged with?...Does that mean he was guilty or not guilty?...Do you see my point?...My point is you have no point.

Nixon covered up a nothing intel spying, which goes on all the time, routine...Ask Bill Clinton (900 FBI files), who according to you must be innocent because he was the President and able to wield that power to commit crimes while in office, including using the power of the Presidency to sexually harass (never mind his failure dealing with terrorism)...When they called him to the carpet for sexual harassment he was hoisted upon his own petard.

I am sure Clinton knew nothing about the Chinese Communist Military money that helped get him elected in 1996...I am sure Susan Weber Wright found him guilty of the very crimes the House accused him of...no doubt...the jury was stacked, it was a kangaroo court and the Democrat Senators violated the law to keep him alive...This is fascism when the defendent is powerful enough to have the judge and jury in his back pocket.

stevepaa 09-13-2005 09:27 AM

Hey, I'm talking criminal convictions not policital hangings. Yeah, Nixon was not convicted of anything because of his pardon. I guess he was completely innocent of everything. Too bad everyone around him went to jail.

Maybe you don't get it, but I am not defending Clinton. He just was not a bad as Nixon was bad.

But as I review, no you don't get it.

Mulhollanddose 09-13-2005 11:21 AM

So obstruction of justice and perjury is okay when you commit the crime, but when you coverup a crime that you did not commit, obstruction of justice and perjury is greater on some liberal gradiation of oath violation?

Why was Nixon not charged and fined like Clinton?...Nixon wasn't disbarred and held in contempt of court...Nixon didn't drag the country through the mud and slime innocents like Ken Starr, Katheen Wiley, Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones...Nixon's crimes fell well below Clinton's abuse of power.

But as I review, no you don't get it.

RKC 09-13-2005 11:40 AM

What does Nixon's or Clinton's abuse of power have to do with their results? It is in exercising power that results are produced - some good, some bad.

Since the question is who perfomed worst, even as a Democrat I think it's clear that it was Carter (decent man though he may be). He did not use the power of his office well or ill - he barely used it at all. Action is the supreme virtue....


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.