During the election we heard time and again how Joe the Plumber should not ask questions of Obama because he owed about $1200 in back taxes. Fast forward and now we have Obama's choice of Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary who we have learned he owed $32,000 in back taxes prior to being tapped for Treasury Secretary after which he paid them off. And what do we hear about his failure to pay taxes "not a big deal" "just a hickup". And this is the person who's going to run the IRS? How do you not know that you have to pay taxes? Last I checked everyone who worked got a tax form showing what you were payed and what was or was not taken out in taxes.
So after the uproar about Joe not paying his taxes why then is Timothy Geithner getting a pass.
Oh yea Biden said it was patriotic to pay taxes so does that make Timothy Geithner unpatriotic?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available."
The Washington Times
The Washington Times is playing fast and loose with the truth, I'm afraid. There are a few members of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, like Chile, Belgium, and Morrocco, who are of the socialist mentality. But, the CMSWS is not a socialist group. They are administrators from quite a large number of countries. If you are interested in the story of Carol Browner, her biography is available, here:
http://www.epa.gov/history/admin/agency/browner.htm
The Washington Times is notorious for their failure to fact check their writers. I seriously question their journalistic standards. They even admit that they found some of the information in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not fact check the multiple entries that are posted. Anyone can write anything and get it included in Wikipedia. That is why as an instructor at a junior college, I will not accept Wikipedia as a source. It is not reliable. The Washington Times is even worse. They lack journalistic integrity. They are no different that Rush Limbaugh with his baseless lies that get spewed out on a daily basis.
Do you just spout stuff that sounds good to you?
the Commission for a Sustainable World Society is a commission set up by Socialist International;
http://www.socialistinternational.org/commission.cfm
Notice the web address!
Here's a list of members of the comission listed on the socialist international website from feburary 2008;
Ricardo Lagos, former President of the Republic of Chile and a Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Climate Change, and Göran Persson, former Prime Minister of Sweden, have been appointed Co-Chairs of the Commission, and other members are: Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,United Kingdom;
Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency under President Bill Clinton;
Elio di Rupo, leader of the Socialist Party of Belgium; Mohamed El Yazghi, leader of the Socialist Union of Popular Forces, USFP, and Minister of the Government of Morocco; Sigmar Gabriel, Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany; Aleksandr Kwasniewski, former President of the Republic of Poland; Sergei Mironov, President of the Federal Council of Russia; Cristina Narbona, Minister of the Environment of Spain; Beatriz Paredes, President of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of Mexico; Anand Sharma, Minister of State for External Affairs of India; Marina Silva, Minister of the Environment of the Federative Republic of Brazil; Martin Torrijos, President of the Republic of Panama and leader of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD); and Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of South Africa.
Yah she was in fine company. LOL!
Obama is setting a VERY POOR ethical precedent...and anyone hauled to court for Tax evasion has an "Ace in the Hole;" all their Lawyer need do is point out the SHENANIGANS of our Treasury Secretary.
What FREAKING RUBBISH!
Joe the Plumber has benefited immensely from the 15 minutes of fame afforded him, and fortunately he's been smart enough to take advantage of it. Otherwise he'd be just another schlub that the McCain campaign was willing to throw under the bus.
Timothy Geitner did pay his taxes and penalties, albeit late. In the end he'll be confirmed anyway.
As to Geithner: I think that he will be confirmed. He should have paid his taxes on time. I agree with you there. However, there are many citizens in our country who do not pay their taxes on time. There are even more who never pay taxes at all. After researching the case, I concluded that he made a terrible mistake. I just don't see writing him off because of a mistake.
Do you just spout stuff that sounds good to you?"
Yes, he does, all the time. He declares whatever he wishes to be a fact, a fact. I have seen him declare things no human being could possibly know to be a fact, facts. He does not seem to comprehend that his every thought is not ultimate truth. If he says something is a fact, it means nothing more than he figures it's true.
"I can tell from many of the comments, that there is little respect for accomplishment. Obama earned everything he got in this life"
Now, how on earth could you know that? How silly to think you have traveled through time, and seen into the minds of all sorts of people, witnessed every moment of that man's life, and can speak with authority that he never go a single break or favor he did not "earn" . . . Obviously you can't, and you are just spouting stuff you imagine, as if reality itself.
You do not limit this pseudo omnipotence to mere human interactions and history of all sorts, but go much further;
"The fact is that not one word in the Bible was verified by Christ."
Now, seriously, there simply is no possible way for a human being to rightly call such a notion, a fact. It is preposterous to speak of such non-occurances as "facts", but you literally do, without batting an eye. I could go on and on, but who cares; Joe is just Joe, not a god.
It is well known what Barack Obama did to achieve his success. I never said that he didn't have an element of luck. No one who succeeds can do it without luck. But, luck only happens to those who earn their way - that is just the way things are. There is no reason to quarrel over Obama's accomplishments, John. Of course, if you don't want to recognize his accomplishments, you question those who respect them.
The Bible was written long after Jesus Christ's death, John. He wasn't alive to verify the New Testament. He may have read the Torah, but again, it was written long before he was born. He couldn't verify the Old Testament. It was a long established tome by the time he was born. Now, you must believe something different. But, those are the truths about the matter. I don't make it so. It just is.
You don't even come close to reasonable thought half the time . . .
"He couldn't verify the Old Testament. It was a long established tome by the time he was born."
This is just plain irrational. To verify something, it HAS TO exist beforehand, that is elementary logic. You are not logical.
I don't give a hoot about your silly imaginings, you spoke an utterly ridiculous thing, saying that something could not have been verified, because it was already established at the time. You can go trundling off anywhere you like in your word association nightmare, I ain't going with you, you are clearly irrational.
Not me. i heard he was a tax-cheating lying plant.
"Last I checked everyone who worked got a tax form showing what you were payed and what was or was not taken out in taxes.'
last you heard was wrong. I own my own business...YOU are referring to the wage earners only.
"So after the uproar about Joe not paying his taxes why then is Timothy Geithner getting a pass."
So...you don't know to end a question in a question mark? Timothy is NOT being given a "pass"...particularly as much as we've been hearing already. His confirmation comes after the innauguration. Mr. Geithner didn't have a lein on his house for non-payment...and he paid as soon as the oversight was caught. He did not lie to discredit or make some point...nor to make himself seem like someone he wasn't. He made a common error and addressed it immediately. It's not too complicated to people with two digit IQs. One has ethics. One does. I can see why the question of ethics is confusing to you and others in the GOP.
"Geithner will probably get confirmed, and he will be made to pay his back taxes. "
That's a fait accompli Joe. They've been paid already. Wonder who (if anyone) paid Joe, the tax-cheating liars?
"He also had an illegal working as his maid. "
No he didn't. She was legal. Her status lapsed for a short, temporary lapse in her status.
"Obama is setting a VERY POOR ethical precedent..."
Says you. Where's the contempt for the WORST, vile, criminal and unethical "President" in US history?
"Joe the Plumber, a creatin meathead with a 10th grade education and 4 year old's maturity is compared with incoming Treasury Sec. These type of arguments are why you guys are in the dustbin of history for a long, long, long time."
Exactly. Enjoy the view from the cheap seats...and don't forget...Clinton got oral. HAHAhahahaaa!
?
There happy a question mark
Sorry I'm not as smart as you sum times I fourgets how to right my sentances korektly. I don't right four a liven so sum times I fourgets two nclude a ? mark.
"Worst of all the IMF sent quarterly reports showing estimated raxes that individuals owed. So again how did he FORGET to pay his taxes."
Not to mention that the IMF gave him a check at the end of every year for the expressed reason of paying his taxes.
Joe,
"I'm very concerned that there is an element in society that aims to undercut the president as was done to Bill Clinton."
You mean like the Democrats have been doing to President Bush since day one of his Presidency?
Where was the special investigator inspired by the Democrats? Sorry, Dan, but the Democrats have never behaved like the Republicans did during the Bill Clinton presidency.
To the two Charles'
It is different because there was no lying involved or misrepresentation of oneself in the case of Geithner. Joe the Plumber turned out to pretending to be able and desiring of buying a business without any preparation. In this country, we still value the truth. Joe the Plumber did pretty well for a liar.
As to Joe the Plumber, Don't know him but if he is a Plumber and went through the aprenticeship program he has as lot more thatn a 10th grade education. He served a tough 4 year aprenticeship and had to pass a comprehensive exam to befome a Plumber. If you think that is easy think again.
So you say Geitner didn't pay his taxes because of a simple mistake even though he was notified and was given the money to pay his taxes. Then you say Joe is a tax dodger because he didn't pay his. I'm sure both men have paid by now but I don't think your double standard is quite fair. You say Joe is an uneducated olf and Geitner an educated man. Which one sould be current on their taxes? Which one would logically make a mistake?
In the meantime, Joe the Plumber is embarking on a new career as a war correspondent for Pajamas TV. So, all is well with the world.
You mean the special investigator who's evidence led to the impeachment of President Clinton and to his eventual dissbarrment?
Come on Charles, this is such an obvious and absolute fabrication done solely to create a straw man that can serve as a basis for a bashing article that it destroys any credibility in anything that might follow. Not only didn't we hear "time and time again" but we didn't hear it once. No one said that a citizen of this country can't ask a question because he or she owes taxes. Again, you've created a premise that isn't true for the sole purpose of being a target for ideological darts. Oh, and to distract from an honest discuss of the real issues.
"Your analogy is a bad one. The reason that Joe the Plumber was picked on by anyone with any shred of decency is because he misrepresented himself." (Joe T, in a comment)
I would even disagree with this, though to less of an extent. Yes, "Joe" misrepresented himself, which begs the question as to what else he is misrepresenting on purpose. But the reason people can't take him seriously is because he is a combination of ill-informed and simply un-informed. He spouts statements proposing or opposing things he has no knowledge of, and worse, things that he gets his "knowledge" from the part of the blogosphere and the spinmeisters who play on the fears of folks such as himself. The reason he got media attention was because he was a sideshow that got ratings from people more interested in entertainment than information. It certainly wasn't because he was an expert on any given topic. In fact, and to reiterate, he clearly was misinformed and uninformed on most of the things he got interviewed about.
And the funny thing is, he is playing the very crowd who are touting him as "Joe Everyman." He has parlayed his 15-minutes of fame into an attempt to become a singer, a "pundit," and a "correspondent" (aka, a male model to stand in front of some distant smoke near Gaza [from the safety of Israel] as an advertisement for pajamas tv, which oddly enough no one had ever heard of before "Joe's" publicist and talent agent arranged the deal). By the way, how many "Joe Everymen" do you know with publicists and "talent" agents?
Personally I think it is hysterical that the people are using Joe as a role model for middle America. I give Joe a lot of credit for his ability to take advantage of the opportunity that was plumped at his feet, but not a whole lot for being informed.
Joe,
A license doesn't make you a plumber, it authorizes you to run your own business as a plumber.
"He did not study the Bible in any way."
And what do you base that statement on....faith? LOL!
"There just is no proof about the notion that Jesus "verified" the Bible."
Matthew 5:17 (New International Version)
The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
verify
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy?ing.
1. to prove the truth of, as by evidence or testimony; confirm; substantiate: Events verified his prediction.
2. to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison: to verify a spelling.
3. to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm.
According to the Bible and the words of Jesus himself, Jesus did "verify" the 'law'
It seem that you're calling "Joe the plumber" misinformed because you don't agree with him,
I don't get much else out of your post.
Then perhaps you should read it again and think about it.
By the way, the accusation of "you think he's misinformed because you don't agree with him" is another common ruse to avoid having to defend your point of view. In reality, Joe has not offered an informed opinion on any subject, so there is really nothing to disagree with, is there? When asked a question he offers some platitude he got from an email or blog. When pressed to explain what he means he cannot offer any reason, fact, or information to support his "opinion." So again, what actually is there to disagree with?
I give Joe a great amount of credit. He called the bluff of the politicians who sought to use him as a political tool and is now using the political right as his tool. I think it is hysterical. And it highlights the danger to credibility that can occur when you play political games.
David in the context of your post this statement seems rather nonsensical, what point of view was I avoiding to defend?
Did I post a position other than to comment on the lameness of your post?
Obfuscation is another common ruse to deflect from the discussion. So is using a phrase like "lameness of your post," which is designed to demean the value of other's opinions rather than defend your own.
But that's okay, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Best wishes.
Speaking of Obfuscation and deflecting from a discussion.
"using a phrase like "lameness of your post," which is designed to demean the value of other's opinions"
Well I agree with you there. But if you don't like your opinion being demeaned then don't make lame posts, it's as simple as that.
How So David?
Because you say it isn't, we all know what transpired after "Joe's" exchange with Obama.
Obama made derogatory remarks about him the very next campaigh speech, the media set about to ridicule him and find what ever dirt they could on him for weeks afterwards and a state official instituted an illegal investigation into his background.
How do you think we know that 'Joe" was not a licensed plumber? or that he had unpaid taxes?
It's because the media didn't like joe putting Obama on the spot and they decided to try and crucify him.
Why do you think Joe T. thinks that the fact he is not a licensed plumber is such a big deal when it is not? because the media decided to try and crucify him and if that was all they could find they were going make it sound as bad as they could.
David, Just because you say it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen.
"I can't disagree with him because I feel he hasn't provided an supportable opinion on which to disagree"
BTW, if anyone wants to provide an example of any position that Joe the Plumber has espoused and supported,
In the last two posts you have admitted your ignorance concerning joe and his positions, but that didn't stop you from characterizing him as "he is a combination of ill-informed and simply un-informed. He spouts statements proposing or opposing things he has no knowledge of," in your first post.
And what is even more lame is now in light of this unsubstantiated accusation against Joe you are asking people to provide evidence that you are wrong so you can critique Joe's intelligence,
lame to the nth degree.
But hey, let's look at your comment piece by piece.
"we all know what transpired after "Joe's" exchange with Obama. Obama made derogatory remarks about him the very next campaigh speech,..."
Obama made a campaign joke laughing at the silliness that had ensued when the McCain campaign tried to use Joe as a political tool to assert that Obama was a socialist. The contention is so ludicrous that even John McCain couldn't say it with a straight face. It's a bad sign when the Presidential nominee thinks his own campaign's tactics are laughable.
"Why do you think Joe T. thinks that the fact he is not a licensed plumber is such a big deal when it is not? because the media decided to try and crucify him and if that was all they could find they were going make it sound as bad as they could."
The media wanted to know who Joe was because the McCain campaign decided to use him as a tool and parade him around at campaign stops. Given that Joe couldn't actually communicate his thoughts, nor provide any support for them, is it surprising that the media would wonder who he is (not to mention every other thinking person in the US)? The fact that Joe isn't a licensed plumber would not be important at all, except that he presented himself as someone "getting ready to buy a plumbing business" that just happened to result in an income right at the limit that Obama's tax plan used as a metric...and yet it wasn't true. He made it up. Again, no big deal, but when the guy being highlighted by one campaign appears unknowledgable and then misrepresents himself, wouldn't that make you curious? The media ask questions. That's what they do, especially when someone is put out as a campaign spokesman.
"In the last two posts you have admitted your ignorance concerning joe and his positions, but that didn't stop you from characterizing him as "he is a combination of ill-informed and simply un-informed."
Joe has not offered any positions, Dan. Otherwise you might be able to provide one rather than simply label my explanation lame. What Joe has done is make statements. These are not positions, these are statements off the blogosphere. And they are uninformed. For example, during his question he suggested that Obama's tax plan would cost him money. Well, by the next day people had analyzed the effects on Obama's tax plan and discovered that it actually would result in a tax break for Joe. And that is true both for the fabricated scenario he provided and even moreso for his actual circumstances. And yet he continued to mouth the "socialist" catch phrase as if it had meaning. How is that an informed opinion? Even the McCain campaign backed off the argument beccause it was unsupportable.
I'll give you another example of a statement that was not a position. During some public exhibition in his "campaign tour" a fellow yelled out that "Obama's policies would mean the death of Israel," to which Joe responded "I have to agree with you there." And yet Joe had no idea what Obama's policy toward Israel, the Middle East, or pretty much anything else was. He simply voiced agreement to something on which he had no knowledge. He then repeated this same statement on various follow up interviews, still without having any idea what he was talking about. When Shephard Smith of Fox News (not known for its liberal leanings) asked Joe on what basis he was making this statement Joe said he "stood by his statement but thinks everyone should make up their own minds."
Can you explain to me how that is offering an informed position?
Can you provide one example of a position in which Joe provides any kind of support?
Can you provide support for your own positions?
“David what came out of this whole affair is that there are some who will tear down a citizen because he or she may ask a question that calls into question the position of a politician.”
Who, and how exactly, did anyone “tear down” Joe? It was pointed out that he misrepresented himself. That is true. It was pointed out that he would actually benefit from Obama’s tax plan under either the fabricated scenario or his real life scenario. That is true. But how is this tearing down the man? Seems he was doing okay for himself with his joining the McCain campaign, hiring a publicist and talent agent, and putting together a record deal.
“All Joe did was ask a question that Obama answered and that answer was one that many Republicans felt showed Obamas socialist leanings.”
Obama has no socialist leanings, and the Republicans lost the election largely because they lacked any kind of credibility on this and many other issues. That had nothing specifically to do with Joe; that had more to do with the whole transparently faulty and partisan argument that the party was tossing out to at least get the far right and libertarian vote.
“And in the defense of Obama people savaged this man and tried to discredit him and his question by digging illegally into his life.”
Savaged? No one savaged this man. As already noted, he seems to have done quite well parlaying his 15-minutes into larger fame than he could have imagined. But that doesn’t mean he still doesn’t know what he is talking about. Offer any position he has taken and supported with anything close to logical arguments. And as for the "illegally digging" part, all the information that media dug up, probably within an hour of John McCain's first mention of Joe during the debate, is easily retrieved off the internet. Try it some time, you'd be surprised how much data on your personal life can be read by others (including Gather).
“So are we to expect this kind of things from Democrats in four years also?”
You mean honesty? I hope so. The last eight years didn’t work out so well.
“There was more made of Joe's tax issues than is being made by many of Geithner's tax issues.”
Ah, the actual point of your post. First off, let me reiterate that there really isn’t anyone making that big a deal out of Joe’s $1200 tax issue. That is small change compared to the billions in lost tax revenue the government experiences every year from honest mistakes. The beef against Joe isn’t even so much that he misrepresented himself. No, it’s mostly because he was used as a tool by the McCain campaign (who have now disowned him) and now has turned the tables on those who sought to exploit him and is instead exploiting them for personal gain. That’s the real funny part. He’s playing the people who tried to play him. Mazel tov.
But let me ask you this Charles about the Geithner tax issues. Why aren’t the Republican members of the Senate getting all up in his face and jumping up and down screaming about the terrible things that Geithner has done? You can write off the Democrats’ attitude on this one, but the Republicans should be in an uproar. Right? Hmm, why not? Because it apparently isn’t such a big deal. Just like it wasn’t a big deal for Joe the Plumber.
And that’s what I mean by “it’s not true at all.” You’ve created a nice scenario, but it’s pretty much a work of fiction. Still, it was an interesting post.
"When Shephard Smith of Fox News (not known for its liberal leanings) asked Joe on what basis he was making this statement Joe said he "stood by his statement but thinks everyone should make up their own minds.""
Check out the following link. Please ignore the fact that the article is posted on the liberal Huffington Post web site, that just happens to be the first one that popped up when I Googled it. But the site is irrelevant because it provides both the full video and the transcript. Have a look.
Shepard Smith Interview of Joe the Plumber
Did you watch and/or read the whole thing? At the end of the segment, Shepard Smith is so fed up with Joe's lack of knowledge and the fact that Smith had to interview someone with no knowledge of the topic he was being interviewed on, that Smith actually ends with "The rest of it -- man...some things--it just gets frightening sometimes. We'll be right back."
This is Fox News, remember, "fair and balanced," who thinks that Joe is not only clueless but his ignorance is "frightening."
BTW we all each and everyone of us have a right to question goverment
"About Jesus: He was a prophet. He did not study the Bible in any way. He was not a scholar, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have no idea what gives Joe the idea he could know what Jesus did not do, or study, or say. It's just too ridiculous to wrap my mind around. But, within the Book, there is perfectly obvious reference to him discussing the scriptures with the greatest experts in Israel, and astounding them with his grasp of them, when he was twelve. And numerous instances when he preached the scriptures, and read directly from the Book, in front of large congregations. He quotes and refers to passages and accounts in the scriptures many many times. He was obviously a scholar par excellance, according to the Bible, whether Joe believes that or not.)
You mean the special investigator who's evidence led to the impeachment of President Clinton and to his eventual dissbarrment?"
Dan ...... The Senate found President Clinton - not guilty. It is a convenient omission but it puts an entirely new light on the situation.
John Knight . . . . . . All right - prove that Jesus refers to passages and accounts in the scriptures many many times. Remember that the men who wrote the original tomes wrote these things that we now call the New Testament seventy-five years after the death of Jesus Christ. And, the Torah took a lifetime of research and study to understand during the times of Jesus. So, I have to ask that you prove your assertion about Jesus. It is only fair that if you make that kind of claim as a way to argue with me that you act responsibly. Jesus simply did not study the Old Testament or the Torah. And, there are no actual quotes of Jesus in the New Testament that can be verified as true. There are only stories told by men who started the Christian religion that became the Roman Catholic religion.
Sorry I'm not as smart as you sum times I fourgets how to right my sentances korektly. I don't right four a liven so sum times I fourgets two nclude a ? mark. "
It's only mentioned because it's a sign of sloppy thinking or lazziness.
Clinton's 5 year disbarrment was a negotiated settlement to put all this behind him and not an admission of guilt in any way. Just so you know.
Your 'gotcha' postings is lame and juvenile.
"Dan ...... The Senate found President Clinton - not guilty. It is a convenient omission but it puts an entirely new light on the situation."
Joe,
Bill Clinton, the only President ever impeached, caught lying to a grand jury.
"Instead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her allies collected 38 signatures on the resolution, including those of nine Republicans, and filed it as a statement in the Congressional Record. While not ruling out another attempt to force a formal reprimand after returning from a week-long recess, key Senate Democrats made clear that the censure movement was effectively dead.
Yet they did not want their not-guilty votes to be viewed as exoneration for their president. In language that sometimes rivaled Republican rhetoric in its harsh tones, Democratic senators excoriated Clinton for skirting close to the line of illegal behavior and betraying the trust of his high office.
Even Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who spearheaded the Democratic effort that ultimately rescued Clinton's presidency, described in anguished terms yesterday the "sense of betrayal" he experienced because of the president.
"As deeply disappointed as I am with the process, it pales in comparison to the disappointment I feel toward this president," Daschle said in one of the final speeches senators heard in about 20 hours of closed-door deliberations, according to a text released later. "Maybe it is because I had such high expectations. Maybe it is because he holds so many dreams and aspirations that I hold about our country. Maybe it is because he is my friend. I have never been, nor ever expect to be, so bitterly disappointed again." "
Ya Joe it sounds like the found him "not guilty" LOL!
Your 'gotcha' postings is lame and juvenile." (Dan E, above)
So what you are saying is that you can't provide any support for anything you've said? I now see how you define "lame." LOL
Joe,
Bill Clinton, the only President ever impeached, caught lying to a grand jury.
Ya Joe it sounds like the found him "not guilty" LOL!
**********
(all above copied from Dan E, above, including reference to earlier quotes by Joe T.)
**********************
Perhaps some facts might inform the discussion.
Fact: Bill Clinton was impeached.
Fact: Bill Clinton was acquitted (that means "not guilty")
Fact: Bill Clinton was not the only President ever impeached (Andrew Johnson was also acquitted)
Impeachment is not a conviction, it is merely the formal accusation of wrongdoing by the House of Representatives. Clinton was impeached because he lied about having sex in the Oval Office, a personal matter. Andrew Johnson was impeached because he tried to fire one of his own cabinet members. Both the Clinton and Johnson impeachments were purely and unequivocably politics and had nothing to do with "high crimes and misdemeanors."
While the House impeached (i.e., accused) Clinton, the Senate (which is responsible for actually trying the accused) acquitted him. In other words, Clinton was accused by the Republican-controlled House with a trumped up charge, and the more rational Senate found Clinton to be not guilty.
By the way, the trumped up charge against Andrew Johnson also was dismissed as partisan by the Senate and Johnson was acquitted.
So two Presidents have been impeached (accused) and both have been acquitted (found not guilty).
See how providing factual information can support a position.
In fact, the passage documents the attempts to avoid the impeachment and provide an alternative remedy for what was clearly not an impeachable offense. The hope was that a censure would appease the partisan Republicans, but unfortunately they had the majority and were intent on making a sideshow.
President Clinton was impeached by the house of representatives Dec. 19 1998 for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice.
The Senate vote was to remove him from office.
Here's the Cliff Notes version: Clinton was impeached. He was found not guilty.
BTW, the grand jury has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment other than Clinton lying about having sex was the pretense for the House sideshow.
You know, Google is a great resource for finding information if you want to become informed about a topic. Not only will you find that the information I already explained is accurate, but you'll probably find that there was a third President that would have been impeached (and assuredly convicted) if he had stayed in office long enough. [I left him out because technically he was never impeached, though Congress had informed him they would do so if he didn't leave town fast.] Can you guess who?
I know that myopic thinking is one of the side effects of braindead liberism, but I guess impaired reading comprehension goes along with it also.
I won't repeat the FACTS again, you are welcome to your delusion.
"John Knight . . . I have to ask that you prove your assertion about Jesus. It is only fair that if you make that kind of claim as a way to argue with me that you act responsibly. Jesus simply did not study the Old Testament or the Torah. And, there are no actual quotes of Jesus in the New Testament that can be verified as true."
This is a fine demonstration of how Joe thinks; He makes assertions about what Jesus DID NOT DO, calling them "facts": When I mention that those "facts" are directly contradicted by the accounts from which our knowledge (accurate or not) about Jesus comes to us, he disqualifies those accounts as unverifiable, and restates what Jesus DID NOT DO . . . ? . . going so far as to claim it is UNFAIR of me to "argue" his declarations without "proof" that he is wrong . . . ?
Obviously, Joe is imitating the language patterns of those who sound authoritative, without any grasp at all of the actual reasoning that such patterns require to justify their use. There is no difference to Joe, between what he happens to imagine, and reality itself. Anything he thinks, he sees as fact. His own imagination is all the verification he requires of himself, before he declares what is factually true.
Any attempt at reasonable discussion with him is an exercise in futility. Any assumption that what he declares factual, has any basis other than what he happens to imagine, is misplaced . . . Runnin' on empty.
You said: "President Clinton was impeached by the house of representatives Dec. 19 1998 for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice."
While your statement (and the Wiki article) is technically incomplete, it's reasonably factual. But then, we agree on this point. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. So if I am delusional, and we agree, then by extension that makes you delusional as well, correct?
You also wrote: "The Senate vote was to remove him from office."
Again, the statement is incomplete and technically inaccurate, and in fact, even moreso within the context of our discussion. The Senate conducted a trial, at the end of which each of two charges was voted upon as either guilty or not guilty. On both counts the vote was for not guilty. Had the vote been for guilty, then Clinton would have had to leave office, but that is only the functional result of the guilty/not guilty vote, not the reason the Senate voted. Either way, the Senate voted not guilty.
This entire discourse was based on your insistence that Clinton was found guilty. He was not. Your mistake is clear, though your inability to accept the correction is not. You misunderstood the impeachment process and assumed that impeachment meant guilty, when in fact it means only that the House made the formal accusation. The Senate then conducted a trial and found Clinton to be not guilty of the charges. Consider the analogy of a real trial. The prosecutor charges the defendant with some crime. Then there is a trial and the defendant is found to be guilty or not guilty. The House/Senate roles are analogous. By your misunderstanding of the process, you would be saying that everyone who had been accused of a crime would be guilty just because they were accused. I could accuse you of embezzling the payroll of your company and by your standards you would automatically be guilty of embezzlment, despite the fact that I may have just made it up because I saw a political benefit in doing so.
Bottom line is, you chose to insult, defame, and abuse those who pointed out your error rather than obtain the correct information and agree on the facts. You would rather accuse someone of "myopic thinking" and "braindead liberalism" due to "impaired reading comprehension" and "delusions" - all while it is you who are guilty of exactly what you are accusing others. Joe T was not inaccurate in saying that Clinton was found not guilty, you were in stating that he was found guilty, then attempting to demean the person who was correct. I provided factual support for my opinions, you provided snide remarks. I explained why I opined the way I did, you employed the whole gamut of ruses to sidestep having to take responsibility for your positions.
The whole thing would have been a speck on a windshield if you hadn't been blinded by the very myopic thinking you so easily accuse of others. In a way it's sad. Rather than learn from different points of view, the norm is to stake a claim on a position and toss stones at anyone who presents an opposing position. Throwing stones is especially dangerous when you sit in a glass house, i.e., one without any support for the position you espouse. Too often the thrown stone crashes the transparency around the thrower.
+sigh+ For goodness sake ... he's not being crucified here. But he did fail to pay his taxes for three or four years that we know of (I've heard amounts ranging from 32K- 38K). He owed a heckuva lot more than Joe did for a longer period of time than Joe. And probably would never have paid had Obama not tapped him for Treasury.
The man is set to be Treasury Secretary of the whole United States. And Joe the plumber ... well, he was only ever gonna be responsible for his own finances, his own family, and his own business such as it was (until the fateful meeting with B.O. anyway). Whatever else he did or didn't do, whatever else some people have fixed in their mind that he did or didn't do (that no one else in the world ever has done before to hear some people talk) ... but anyway ... Whatever else has happened since then, by Joe not paying his taxes he only put himself at risk.
Timothy G on the other hand.... wants to be virtually in charge of everybody's money and fifth in line to succeed the Potus. So, while he shouldn't be crucified, and isn't being crucified, he surely should have to endure at least as much notoriety, investigation (hopefully more legal than the investigation into Joe's affairs), and castigation as Joe did after he asked his question and while NOT being in line for any government position or in line to handle anyone else's finances.
All right, Charles. Let's just crucify the man, already!
Joe T., Jan 15, 2009, 5:33pm EST
Let's say your view is accurate .... Then wouldn't it make more sense to have more compassion, forgiveness, and forebearance in regard to (in your words) a poor "creatin meathead with a 10th grade education and 4 year old's maturity" for not being able to keep track of his taxes, than for someone who is not a "creatin meathead with a 10th grade education and 4 year old's maturity" but still can't seem to get his taxes paid?
In other words, using your criteria, T. Geithner has a lot on-the-ball. Because of that wouldn't we be correct to assume and expect him to be able to handle his finances and responsibilities, including being able to pay his taxes on time, better than "a creatin meathead with a 10th grade education and 4 year old's maturity". . . so that there would be no reason for him to be compared to a "cretin" who owed back taxes?
Joe the Plumber, a creatin meathead with a 10th grade education and 4 year old's maturity is compared with incoming Treasury Sec. These type of arguments are why you guys are in the dustbin of history for a long, long, long time.
Sam C., Jan 15, 2009, 7:39pm EST