<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Conserveidiocy</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Conserveidiocy"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Conserveidiocy"/>
	<updated>2026-10-01T06:49:21Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:George_H._W._Bush&amp;diff=261472</id>
		<title>Talk:George H. W. Bush</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:George_H._W._Bush&amp;diff=261472"/>
		<updated>2007-08-06T20:15:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Conserveidiocy: /* Link */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Protected|TK}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== He is considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents ==&lt;br /&gt;
I'll freely admit that Bush Senior looks a LOT better now that we've seen Junior at work, but, seriously.  You can say that about EVERY president except Millard Fillmore and it'd be true.  Are there any non-Democrat presidents Conservapedia DOESN'T like?  --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you on most of your statement (except for the part about Junior at work.)  We should avoid that kind of talk about Presidents.  --[[User:Additioner]] 15:05, 25 April 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George, Sr. was a one term president, George, Jr, is polling equal to Jimmy Carter. I would not consider that one of the great political families. [[User:crshedd|crshedd]] May 6, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Well thank goodness they didn't do polling back in the days of the Adams men,  eh?   --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Voodoo Economics... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please read the articles.  It is mentioned in the campaign section.  Please refrain from repeating slogans. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:No need to be snippy, TK, I didn't mean to hit a nerve. I don't see any mention of &amp;quot;voodoo economics&amp;quot; in the campaign section. I respectfully request that you restore the reference to the GHWB article.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Done. Sorry if you thought directness was snippy. I will try to watch that.  --~ [[User:TK|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 01:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If by &amp;quot;directness&amp;quot; you are referring to your snide suggestion that I read the article, you are misusing the word. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I would suggest you assume the contributor has read the article. Your comment was evidence that you had not read the article. I thought I was being rather charitable in referring to your comment as &amp;quot;snippy&amp;quot;. And what exactly did you mean by &amp;quot;repeating slogans.&amp;quot; Rather snide, wouldn't you say? Or condescending? Patronizing? --[[User:NItramNos|NitramNos]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Locked?==&lt;br /&gt;
Is this article locked? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 08:41, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Yes, Will.  That is why I added the template saying so is pasted right above. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Link ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The North American Free Trade Agreement link doesn't work, as the article is titled [[NAFTA]] on conservapedia.  The next time edits are allowed, it would be good to change this. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Didn't Bush have a daughter named Robin, buried at his library?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Conserveidiocy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Impeachment_and_removal&amp;diff=261465</id>
		<title>Impeachment and removal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Impeachment_and_removal&amp;diff=261465"/>
		<updated>2007-08-06T20:03:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Conserveidiocy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is &amp;quot;tried&amp;quot; by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the &lt;br /&gt;
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[United States House of Representatives]] has &amp;quot;sole power of impeachment.&amp;quot; The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Impeachment in 19th Century America==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.&lt;br /&gt;
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Andrew Johnson==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders &amp;quot;traitors&amp;quot;. Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an &amp;quot;accidental Chief&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the elect of an assassin.&amp;quot; Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the &amp;quot;wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment.&amp;quot; Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: &amp;quot;May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted &amp;quot;not guilty,&amp;quot; and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Impeachment in recent history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bill Clinton==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a &amp;quot;vast right-wing conspiracy&amp;quot; against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, recently failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently feels it is too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Popular usage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, &amp;quot;That official was impeached,&amp;quot; you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One US president was ''impeached'' (President Clinton) and one (Andrew Johnson) escaped impeachment by one vote.  Neither were removed from office.  While impeachment has been frequently discussed during George W. Bush's term, it was considered a waste of time by the time a possible legislative majority could be assembled.  Some of the reasons discussed for Bush's impeachment were lying about the reasons for going to war, improper use of executive powers, and many more.  Probably one of the most compelling reasons that Bush escaped impeachment is that his Vice President was considered to be worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Conserveidiocy</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Impeachment_and_removal&amp;diff=261464</id>
		<title>Impeachment and removal</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Impeachment_and_removal&amp;diff=261464"/>
		<updated>2007-08-06T20:02:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Conserveidiocy: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is &amp;quot;tried&amp;quot; by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the &lt;br /&gt;
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[United States House of Representatives]] has &amp;quot;sole power of impeachment.&amp;quot; The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Impeachment in 19th Century America==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.&lt;br /&gt;
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Andrew Johnson==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders &amp;quot;traitors&amp;quot;. Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an &amp;quot;accidental Chief&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the elect of an assassin.&amp;quot; Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the &amp;quot;wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment.&amp;quot; Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: &amp;quot;May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted &amp;quot;not guilty,&amp;quot; and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Impeachment in recent history==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bill Clinton==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a &amp;quot;vast right-wing conspiracy&amp;quot; against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, recently failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently feels it is too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Popular usage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, &amp;quot;That official was impeached,&amp;quot; you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One US president was''impeached'' (President Clinton) and one (Andrew Johnson) escaped impeachment by one vote.  Neither were removed from office.  While impeachment has been frequently discussed during George W. Bush's term, it was considered a waste of time by the time a possible legislative majority could be assembled.  Some of the reasons discussed for Bush's impeachment were lying about the reasons for going to war, improper use of executive powers, and many more.  Probably one of the most compelling reasons that Bush escaped impeachment is that his Vice President was considered to be worse.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Conserveidiocy</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>