The thing that amazes :O me most of all, is that none of this seems to be enough to shake people up. When will it be the proverbial straw? Think of the fall out if all this was happening with Dems involved? Why aren't there people screaming from the rooftops?

Unfortunately the mainstream media hasn't let the public at large see the proverbial hay stack. The so-called "liberal" media has overblown any minute indiscretion by Dems and sometimes they have run with unsourced and later proven false claims against Dems until the public at large believes the falsehoods to be truth.

That's why people aren't screaming from the rooftops. So we need to get the word out as best we can.

Missing coins "lost in the mail" - oh yeah. Read "never mailed."

Kira is correct.. The media isn't exposing all of this (like it should be), so most people don't see it or know about it.

For those that do know (they dig far enough to see some issues), they revert to denial that their party does this crap on a regular basis.. They try to turn the argument to "Well, Dems aren't perfect either!".. and I agree.. but as one conservative friend of mine pointed out, "Clinton was the only president ever impeached".. ok... true, but only because Nixon (a Republican) RESIGNED before he could be fully impeached (and make no mistake, he was being impeached). And, Nixon wasn't resigning because of a blow-job.. he was resigning for crimes that were going to have him sent to prison.. but his buddy Ford pardoned him before charges were even filed.. When you are dealing with someone that would rather try to compare a Clinton blow-job to a Nixon Watergate, you will give up trying to understand it.. there -is- no understanding, just trying to enlighten them.

Also, another reason they are hard to get through to.. Some guy (actually, I think it was Rove) just made a statement to the press (yesterday? or so) that "DeLay hasn't done anything wrong", the White House doesn't think there is a case against him, and it's all Dems blowing smoke. Republicans who were just shaking their heads about how corrupt that tool was are now re-spouting the mantra "it's Dems being political, he's innocent!".. Amazing :O to be sure..

Then you have people that just can't get their head around anything that isn't what they already believe, regardless of what the facts are. Just like the link I posted a bit back (2 days ago?) where some religious fanatics -still- believe the earth is standing still and the Universe is moving around us.. they conclude Astronomy is WRONG since it's in conflict with the bible. (I was reading an article from RawStory where someone was talking about using science's debunking the 'literal' word of the bible as a means to explain how Darwinism isn't "some fad", but science like Astronomy and Physics) I had a conversation with a conservative/republican/business owner who insisted our laws were based on the 10 commandments... However, that doesn't account for the 15,000 years of civilizations BEFORE the Judeo-Christian rules came to be written where it was still -not- acceptable to kill or steal. Claiming our laws are based on Judeo-Christian law is quite absurd, yet people still insist on it.. and this guy KNOWS our Founding Fathers were not Christians.. and STILL stands behind his obviously false understanding of the evolution of civilizations.

Some people just can't be reasoned with.. and their totally out of touch leader is running the country.

Great assessment Savanster #4. Their leader is also ruining the country and the world.

Peg C. --- What if you're right!!

by the way, what moron "mails" coins? wouldn't you send them with a parcel carrier, insured? or even insured in the mail?

Sounds to me like someone needs to be put away for a very long time for either fraud, or being so stupid as to deserve incarceration for incompetence..

Totally unrelated to this story, but this just popped up on the A-Infos Radio Project site

Interview with Brad and Clint

I don't know if its been covered already? I don't even know the exact date its from (could be today, could be 3 months ago?)

Its from Elephant Talk CHLY 101.7FM Nanaimo... apparently.

Savanster #4

Your conservative friend is incorrect.

Andrew Johnson, the 17th President was impeached. The account is kind of interesting:

Info Please

Andrew Johnson

Johnson became Lincoln's running mate in 1864 as a result of an attempt to give the ticket a nonpartisan and nonsectional character.

Succeeding to the presidency on Lincoln's death, Johnson sought to carry out Lincoln's policy, but without his political skill. The result was a hopeless conflict with the Radical Republicans who dominated Congress, passed measures over Johnson's vetoes, and attempted to limit the power of the executive concerning appointments and removals.

The conflict culminated with Johnson's impeachment for attempting to remove his disloyal secretary of war in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, which required senatorial concurrence for such dismissals. The opposition failed by one vote to get the two thirds necessary for conviction."

"The opposition failed by one vote to get the two thirds necessary for conviction"

Doesn't that mean he wasn't actually impeached then? just "almost" like Nixon was? Also, this doesn't help the case since he was a 'democrat' for all intent and purposes The conservative's point was, no Republicans have ever been fully impeached (convicted, unless that's something else), just a Democrat (or 2 if Johnson was fully impeached and just not convicted of a crime afterwords..)

I'm a bit fuzy on the whole "impeachment" process anyway.. not that I really care since Nixon resigned over serious allegations, Clinton was impeached because of a blow-job (well, lying about it.. but part of that, as I understand it, was hair-splitting by a bunch of lawyers over what the definition of "sexual relations" was). Not to mention the allegation by an out-going Senator that Clinton was mostly payback for Nixon..

I no longer care about impeaching, I want to see * in a cell with nothing to think about except all the lives he has destroyed. Constant video of all the faces of children...
While I agree there is no way to change the minds of the mindless/brainwashed, I do believe there are people that would have a change in attitude if faced with the real truth, not everyone is a brainless fool, this actually pains me to say, not all repugs are religious rightwingers. Those are the people that could change their minds if informed. I know, call me pollyanna

weeeee.....

So, republicans are "good" people, not at all interested in defrauding (on a large scale, no less) the American public for money..

Grant had a problem where " All of the politicians implicated in the scandal were Republican colleagues of Grant, including outgoing vice president Schuyler Colfax, incoming vice president Henry Wilson, and Speaker of the House James G. Blaine" ..

and Fall, under Warren Harding (a Republican Administration) was guilty of taking lots of bribes in the "teapot dome" problem..

and Nixon with "[his] participation in the Watergate cover-up and massive illegalities in Republican fundraising in 1972"..

then Republican Ronald Regan with Iran-Contra and "Secrecy was necessary for a number of reasons. First, the arms deal was illegal, violating a U.S. trade and arms embargo against Iran. It also clearly subverted the Reagan administration's policy not to negotiate with terrorists. And finally, profits from the operation were being used to fund another conflict, that of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who were trying to overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government"

and we end on Clinton, who finally "admitted giving false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky" (lied about a blow-job, not sure what other info he gave 'false testimony' about).. And, that listing -does- say that infact, he was the "second" president ever impeached.. but was acquitted of criminal charges (I guess that's where Johonson wasn't 'convicted' either)..

Still.. seems odd that one Dem is impeached for trying t fire what he saw as a bad worker (Johnson), and one for a blow-job.. yet Nixon, Grant (though only his minions were guilty), Harding (again, not directly but his cabinet), and Reagen all do -serious- harm to Americans and Global interests.. and nothing "serious" comes from any of that.. Na, Republicans aren't the ones apt to be corrupt yet go after "the other side" in a mud-flinging contest..

and people wonder why I dislike Repugs so much

I'm with Rosey #11..

Yeah, my "conservative friend" isn't happy with what's going on either.. just not sure why someone votes for someone like * when they -know- the war was illegal, they -know- this guy is bad news.. but they still vote for them??? Then go "yeah yeah, they are scum.. bad choice.. but I"m still republican"..

Sure, we can motivate enough people to "push out shrubman", but they are still "lost" on the grander picture.. that's what bothers me

Well - if we look at it that way, Clinton wasn't impeached either.

The history is calling that both Johnson and Clinton were impeached. Actually, history says they were both acquitted. So - if the conservative radical repugnants insist that Clinton was impeached, so was Johnson.

Not that I really care, it's just that I can't stand it when they stop all discourse to pull the "Clinton" card.

To me - the Radical Repugnants look like utter morons - wait ... psychotic morons.

We are apparently fighting for freedom from propaganda ... our American History is full of it. Remember, whoever wins the war writes the history and they've written a bunch of hogwash that a lot of Americans accepted as absolute truth.

The impeachment of Clinton should be viewed as just another schoolyard bully tactic. The Radical Repukes are nothing but pathetic, angry adolescents who steal from their parents and lie about anything they can to get their own way and if lying doesn't work, they start punching. They have so little imagination or brainpower they can't have productive diplomatic meetings to work out differences.

Just keep giving 'em more rope --- and eventually they ... will!!!

HEADS UP GUYS!

Link to open thread.

Woo! A lot went on while I was slowly composing my post!

My #14 is in response to Savanster #10.

Impeached doesn't mean convicted; it only means charged, accused. Roughly the equivalent, as it's used in Congress, to being indicted in a criminal court. Then comes the 'trial' then you're convicted. Or not. Or am I wrong about that?

Hi Joan #17 & Savanster,
Impeachment --- Check out this site for a good history of the word: World Wide Words - International English from a British Viewpoint

by Michael Quinion

"In recent decades, the rows over supposed Presidential misconduct and the subsequent calls for impeachment have led to confusion among members of the public and many commentators about the meaning of the word. Rather than implying setting in motion a legal process that may or may not conclude wrong-doing has taken place, the word is used assuming guilt and implying that impeachment is the punishment, not the trial, something nearer “dismissal from office” than its true meaning in law."

Kira #18,
Thanks for that link, really interesting for a word enthusiast like me! I think I would sum up the present meaning of 'impeachment' this way: in the judicial system the word is 'indict'; in the legislative, it's 'impeach'. One little tidbit I like from that site is the archaic use of the word 'peach' to mean accuse or betray. Conjures up the image of 19th century drawing rooms & English gardens....a nice little imaginary respite from our present predicament.

For Joan and Kira: You've got impeachment right. It's an accusation, not a conviction or a banishment from office.

If I may plug my new book, "The Lindbergh Syndrome: Heroes and Celebrities in a New Gilded Age," I attempt to relate the actions of the Radical Republicans after the War Between the States to the villains of later Gilded Ages: A. Mitchell Palmer, who conducted the Palmer raids amid the Red Scare after World War I, and with the HUAC and McCarthy after World War II. The common thread is punishing dissidents.

I point out how Stanton, as a leader of the Radical Republicans, opposed Andrew Johnson. The Radicals wanted to punish all former Confederates as traitors, whereas Lincoln had asked for "malice toward none, charity for all..." in his Second Inaugural speech. Johnson tried to straddle the fence, meanwhile the Radicals tried to implicate him in Lincoln's assassination, then passed the Tenure of Office Act (over Johnson's veto), finally used the act as grounds for impeachment. It was a travesty, because firing a cabinet officer cannot possibly qualify as a "high crime or misdemeanor," the Constitutional requirement for impeachment.

Edmund G. Ross of Kansas cast the deciding vote in Johnson's favor. JFK cited this in "Profiles in Courage," because Ross was bravely going against his fellow Republicans to do this. Predictably, he was excoriated by the Radicals and in the press.

That was during the first Gilded Age. Post-World War I was the second (Palmer), and post-World War II (HUAC, McCarthy) was the third. We're now in the fourth. The lesson? History always repeats.

Or is it Radical Repugs who always repeat? (At least in this instance.)

So, the 2004 Election was stolen?:
NonPartisan EVIDENCE 2004 ELECTION STOLEN-22 STATES MACHINE FRAUD

ohh, those wonderful voting machines:
Counting error overstates votes

Off topic:
Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World --- "A crime against humanity"

Back to the Ohio Coin Scandal- Here's a fax I sent to the Democratic National Committee 202 479-5162:

Dear DNC:
The DNC should be sending paratroopers to land feet first into the Ohio Coin Fund Scandal. We need publicity, investigation, and RICO indictments NOW! Please devote resources to this affair immediately while the momentum is growing. Ohio Republican corruption is one of the deciding factors in the 2004 election loss, and they are still blocking any attempt to expose voting fraud. Citizens demand:
YOU MUST MOVE ON THIS NOW!