C'mon... Vote to impeach Bush

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,934
567
126
are you not understanding the chart? 20% of the population gets nearly 50% of the income. it's possible to have rich people AND an income distribution that's not as asymmetrical.
Asymmetrical? That 20% enjoys all the same roads, highways, sewers, water treatment, schools, environment protection, law enforcement, fire protection, Medicare, Medicaid, all forms of public assistance and aid to the poor, military protection, health care expenditures, et. al. ad nauseum that the underclass enjoys.

Let me see, if I were wealthy, and my $50,000 (or larger) annual contribution to the federal, state, and local treasuries netted me THE EXACT SAME public benefit as someone who pays NOTHING, I would say that person was getting one helluva deal; the deal of the century.

The premise in your statement is the classical flaw of antiquated 18th and 19th century socialist thinking: "20% of the population gets nearly 50% of the income."

The notion implicit in this statement presumes the collective income of a nation is a zero-sum game, that BECAUSE 20% of the population "gets" nearly 50% of the income, that only "leaves" 50% left-over for which the other 80% must compete, as though we're talking about distributing government surplus cheese. "Oops, we didn't have enough government cheese for everyone because some people 'got' more than their fair share."

This is BULLSH-T, DISCREDITED, 18TH CENTURY THINKING that no self-respecting contemporary economist would be caught dead trying to advance and is unsupported by all modern economic schools of thought.

The collective 'income' or 'wealth' of an economy is not a predetermined 'fixed' amount 'allocated' by some 'Ministry of Collective Wealth and Earnings', over which the masses must then compete. Wealth is EARNED or CREATED, not "gotten". Bill Gates isn't worth $60 billion BECAUSE someone else isn't or because 100,000 others were 'shorted' $600,000 each.

It doesn't work like that.
 

Staples

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
4,953
119
106
Originally posted by: Booster
I think Bush is a nice guy. I fully agree with his policy on Iraq, it's a pity that these European governments are holding back the strike. All these anti-war protests make me feel so angry, almost sick.

When we have a problem with only 10 people in the country, some people do not believe that killing 10s of thousands just to get those 10 is the right thing to do.
 

element

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,635
0
0
Bush just needs to gas some of his own people to get all the peacniks on his side...


hey wait a minute...
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,191
41
91
Originally posted by: Shanti
This part deserves repeating.

Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism.

As long as we are picking the portion of history we think is relevant:

There wouldn't be a United States if France hadn't sent its fleet over to America to stymie the Brits during our Revolution. Anybody remember anything about the Battle of Yorktown and why the Continental Army won?

Might add that the French monarchy bankrupted itself in the process and caused the French Revolution.


 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: Shanti
This part deserves repeating.

Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism.

As long as we are picking the portion of history we think is relevant:

There wouldn't be a United States if France hadn't sent its fleet over to America to stymie the Brits during our Revolution. Anybody remember anything about the Battle of Yorktown and why the Continental Army won?

Might add that the French monarchy bankrupted itself in the process and caused the French Revolution.
First off, I didnt' say it, the leaders of 8 European nations did.
Yes, France helped us. That is why ever since then, the U.S. and France have been close allies. Our alliance with France is one of the reasons thousands of American's died liberating France from the Germans. Thousands of Frenchmen died too.

The point now is that they are ignoring the growing threat of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, in the same way that most of Europe, including Britain, ignored Germany's military buildup after WWI. France and Germany are making the same mistake again. The 8 European leaders that authored that letter do NOT want to make the same mistake twice. They know the consequences of allowing Saddam to violate all of his agreements. They've seen the same thing before.

 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,191
41
91
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Originally posted by: Shanti
This part deserves repeating.

Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism.

As long as we are picking the portion of history we think is relevant:

There wouldn't be a United States if France hadn't sent its fleet over to America to stymie the Brits during our Revolution. Anybody remember anything about the Battle of Yorktown and why the Continental Army won?

Might add that the French monarchy bankrupted itself in the process and caused the French Revolution.
First off, I didnt' say it, the leaders of 8 European nations did.
Yes, France helped us. That is why ever since then, the U.S. and France have been close allies. Our alliance with France is one of the reasons thousands of American's died liberating France from the Germans. Thousands of Frenchmen died too.

The point now is that they are ignoring the growing threat of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, in the same way that most of Europe, including Britain, ignored Germany's military buildup after WWI. France and Germany are making the same mistake again. The 8 European leaders that authored that letter do NOT want to make the same mistake twice. They know the consequences of allowing Saddam to violate all of his agreements. They've seen the same thing before.

So sorry!! Completely different situation this time.

The US Navy can rather handily take on all the rest of the navy's in the world simultaneously, including those of our allies, and defeat them.

The US Air Force can take on the next 10 largest air forces in the world, which includes many of our allies, and defeat them.

Contrast that with the situation in the late 1930s when Germany was militarily superior to any other single country in Europe.

The vast superiority the US has currently gives it the option of allowing the situation go to, or even past, a critical point and then being able to wipe out Iraq. Come on, it took 30 or so days of air activity and 100 HOURS of ground activity to get Iraq the last time. Has much changed?

Get off this BS line that this is appeasement. You only can appease a power that is stronger than you. Not even close to where this situation is now.

 

Rastus

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,704
3
0
Bush did get a resolution from Congress authorizing him to go into Afganistan. Clinton did not, he launched attacks to distract attention from Monica.

Bush is going to the UN and will get a resoultion authorizing him to go into Iraq. Clinton did not, he launched attacks to distract attention from Monica.

So, are you saying we should have impeached Clinton for what you are falsly accusing Bush of?
 

VFAA

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2001
1,176
0
0
Well I would vote but I couldn't find Canada under the *States* selection on the application. So I guess Canada is still a nation lol. I decided not to vote.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ace31216
Who's this Bush fellow?

He's the guy that took over the office if the President back when things were good for America. Keep in mind that it's not his fault things suck now.
 

ScottyB

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2002
6,677
1
0
I want to vote for it but I am kind of scared of Ashcroft doing something to me.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,675
146
106
www.neftastic.com
7. Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murder, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners;

I guess every president since Washington should be impeached then... especially since capital punishment became legal.
 

3L33T32003

Banned
Jan 30, 2003
333
0
0
Thank You So Much .....

> -----If you don't read anything else, read the last item, No. 14.
>
> I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, "Thank me, I voted for
> Clinton-Gore." So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending
> my "Thank you" for what you have done, specifically:
>
> (1)Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones,
> Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey and Juanita
> Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

Richard-Mellon Schaif introduced us to all of those women, through a concerted 11 year effort to destroy BC's reputation. He did this by paying state troopers to lie and arranging for huge payouts to women like Flowers to tell their story. If you can prove that BC introduced us to any of these women, I will eat my pc.
>
>
(2)Thank you for teaching my eight year old about oral sex. I had
> really planned to wait until they were older to discuss it with
> them, but now they know more about it than I did as a senior in
> college.

Actually, it was the religious right, discussing these charges on sunday morning tv, that introduced oral sex to your 8 year old. It was later picked up by the conservative controlled media. What two consenting adults do in private should not be brought up in a public forum, unless those casting stones want to have the same rocks thrown at them. For every unsubstantiated sex incident you can name conducted by BC, I can name one made public about a Republican. Care to go toe to toe on that one???

OBTW, if you have so little control over what your 8 year old sees on tv that you would let her watch that stuff, shame on YOU! Some of us practice responsible parenting and don't let our kids watch such crap.
>
>
(3)Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place
> (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have
> to know is what the meaning of "is" is. It really is great to know
> that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex
> while the other one involved does NOT have sex.

People like the writer think that, since Oliver North got his conviction reversed and Cap Weinberger was pardoned that they both "did nothing wrong."
Since BC was never convicted in a court of law for any acts of sexual harrasment that occured in the WH, I would assume that you can apply the same standard. Next point?


>
>
(4)Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new
> generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie
> "Wag the Dog" could be plausible after all.

I thought we did that with Reagan and Bush I. Oh wait they did not have to go thru impeachment because Reagan was losing his mind by the end of the second term and Bush I pardoned everyone who could testify against him concerning Iran-Contra. My bad.

>
>
(5)Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look
> graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful,
> and John Kennedy look moral.

And the only bigger crook than the current resident of the WH was Nixon. Thanks for making us wish for the good old days of tricky dick.
>
>
(6)Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the
> 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid
> testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

Thank YOU for being part of the group to give us IRAN-CONTRA, an little activity that produced more death and destruction than anything BC did.

>
>
(7)Thank you, for the 19 charges, eight convictions, and four
> imprisonments from the Whitewater "mess" and the 55 criminal charges
> and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other "Clinton" scandals.

Thank YOU for the 253 persons who resigned, were fired, and/or were convicted of felonies and misdemeanors under Reagan/Bush. Kinda makes the BC White House look like rank amatuers...

>
>
(8)Thanks also for reducing our military by half, "gutting" much of our
> foreign policy, and flying all over the world on "vacations" carefully
> disguised as necessary trips.

And while you are at it, you can thank us for the 8 years of economic prosperity that was bookended by the economic destruction wreaked by Bush I and II.
>
>
(9)Thank you, also, for "finding" millions of dollars--- I really
> didn't need it in the first place, and I can't think of a more well
> deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned dollars than jet
> fuel for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family,
> and your cronies logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any
> other administration.

Hmm. Will have to check on this one. Seems to me that the current WH resident has beat that in the first 2 years of his term. 18 trips to Florida to help out his brother (on the public dime!!!) included...
>
>
(10)Now that you've left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of
> convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have
> them rejoin society.

You would not want to match that against Reagan/Bush would you? I thought not. Interesting how, when a Dem does something it is bad and wrong, but when a Rep does the same thing it either flies under the radar or is passed over as "not relevant."
>
>
(11)Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I'm sure that
> Laura Bush didn't like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the
> housewarming
> gifts you've received from your "friends."

The rebuttal to this can be summed up in two words: NANCY REAGAN. See my last response. Funny how quickly we forget our history.
>
>
(12)Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House
> for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out.
> I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China,
> silverware,
> linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight
> manuals,
> etc.) out of Air Force One. The weight savings means burning less
> fuel,
> thus fewer tax dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!

No, thank YOU for putting that lie out once again! Keep spreading filth to make your party smell less bad.


>
>
(13)And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the eight million
> dollar advance for her upcoming "tell-all" book and you, Bill, the
> $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn't pay!

Funny, this coming from someone who thinks that American Enterprise is what will save this country. I guess only Republicans are allowed to trade in their fame for profit (Can someone say Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, George Bush, etc....).
>
>
(14)The last and most important point - thank you for forcing Israel to
> let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus
> in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.
> As
> part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had
> to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the
> Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The
> American
> President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State,
> Warren
> Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed
> Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane
> into
> Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of
> the
> American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first
> identified.
> It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn't
> Americans
> know the real truth? What a guy!!

Well, if you want to read the truth, you should not have put points 1-14 up in the first place. But this last damnable lie should have been put to rest a loooong time ago:

From The only reliable source of lie sqaushers on the net...

Claim: A convicted terrorist released by Israel at the insistence of the United States participated in the September 11 terrorist attacks on America.
Status: False.

Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]


I received this e-mail note today, from a reliable source. What can we say?
An Arab terrorist named Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement Israel had to agree to release so called "political prisoners". However, Israeli officials insisted that they would not release any with "blood on their hands". Some well meaning American President and Secretary of State insisted that all be released.

Thus Mr. Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the networks at the time the terrorists were first identified. It was missing from later reports. That President and Secretary of State were Ronald Reagan and George Schultz.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case you didn't know ...

Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him.

As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not release any with "blood on their hands."

The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mr. Atta was freed and eventually "Thanked the US" by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center.

This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.

The American public must be made aware of this fact.




Origins: What we can say is that someone needs a more reliable 'reliable source.'

On 12 April 1986, Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta (also known as Mahmoud Abad Ahmad), a 33-year-old Jordanian native, ambushed a passenger bus in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Atta (working with an accomplice) stopped the bus with a firebomb, then opened fire on it with an Uzi, killing the driver and seriously wounding three passengers.

Atta was arrested in Venezuela a year later, but because Venezuela had no extradition treaty with Israel, Venezuelan officials deported him for immigration violations to his country of origin, the United States. (Atta was a naturalized U.S. citizen.) Atta was arrested by FBI agents upon arrival at Kennedy International Airport and held in prison in the U.S. for more than three years before being extradited to Israel for trial in October 1990. His extradition was controversial because the nature of the extradition treaty in effect required that the accused's offense must be of a "non-political nature," and Atta maintained that he had committed political rather than criminal offenses. Nonetheless, the U.S. courts upheld Israel's extradition request on the grounds that Atta had attacked civilian rather than military targets and had therefore committed regular criminal acts, not political acts aimed at the overthrow of a government. In October 1991, an Israeli court found Atta guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Fast forward ten years. As the U.S. tries to piece together the terrorist plot that resulted in four hijacked airliners and the destruction of both World Trade Center towers, they discover that the mastermind was apparently one Mohamad Atta, who had entered into the U.S. unnoticed and spent well over a year here receiving training at more than one American flight school. Newspapers (both domestic and foreign) begin to criticize U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies for allowing a known terrorist to slip into the country so easily :


[The Australian, 2001]
Much was made about Osama bin Laden's network and how difficult these people are to find. Yet Mohammed Atta, who piloted one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre, was a prime suspect in the 1986 terrorist bombing of a bus in Israel. How does someone like that -- none of the hijackers used aliases -- get into the US?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[San Francisco Chronicle, 2001]

According to a number of published reports, though most chillingly detailed in the Los Angeles Times, at least one of the suicidal hijackers, Mohamed Atta, managed to travel in and out of the United States on an expired visa. This despite the fact that Atta was on the government's watch list of suspected terrorists and had been since 1986 when he was implicated in a bus bombing attack in Israel.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Boston Globe, 2001]

At least one of the Boston hijackers, Mohamed Atta, was able to enter the United States despite having been implicated in a 1986 bus bombing in Israel, according to federal sources. In interviews with the Globe yesterday, flight instructors in Florida said that it was common for students with Saudi affiliations to enter the United States with only cursory background checks, and sometimes none.




Finally, the Boston Globe, at least, caught onto the error and realized that the bus bomber and the hijacker were two different people with the same name:


Last week, many news organizations, including The Boston Globe, reported that US authorities believed Atta had attacked a commercial bus in Israel in 1986. But Second Circuit US Court of Appeals records show that was a case of mistaken identity. Another man, a naturalized US citizen who used the alias of Mahmoud Atta, was arrested in that attack.



Clearly, the message quoted at the head of this article is wrong in its facts. The Atta who attacked a bus was arrested by the FBI and extradited to Israel, not "captured by Israelis," and his extradition didn't take place until two years after Reagan left office. In fact, the Oslo Agreement itself wasn't signed until nearly five years after Reagan left office. All of this makes it rather difficult to support the claim that Atta was released under the terms of the Oslo Agreement at the insistence of "President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State George Schultz" (which explains why this information "was missing from later reports").

What's puzzling to us is why newspapers -- much less "US authorities" -- should have been confused as to whether the two Attas were the same man (especially since one was fourteen years older than the other) or describing Atta as someone "suspected of" or "implicated in" a bus attack for which he had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment ten years earlier.

(According to The Jerusalem Post, Atta the bus bomber "was eventually freed after the Supreme Court ruled there were faults in the extradition process," but the article did not state when this reversal occurred. Newspaper accounts as late as 1993 still described Atta as "serving a life sentence in an Israeli prison.")

What we have here appears to be a case of mistaken identity. The mystery we can't solve is why the mistake was made in the first place.

In mid-2002 the "We freed Atta" claim was twinned in e-mail with another popular Internet canard, the "Oliver North warned us about Osama" falsity. North did speak up about a terrorist during the Iran-Contra hearings, but it was Abu Nidal he mentioned, not Osama bin Laden.






>
> If you agree that the American public must be made aware of these facts,
> pass
> this on. God bless America and THANK YOU (once again) for spending my
> taxes
> so
> wisely and frugally.
>
> SINCERELY,
> A US Citizen

No, thank YOU for putting all the best lies in one place, so they can all be blown away with one post!!!
>
>
P.S.: Please pass along a special thank you to Al Gore for "inventing"
> the
> Internet, without which I would not be able to send this wonderful
> factual e-mail.


Newt Gignrich said that Al Gore had a significant role in the "invention" of the internet. If you have a problem with that statement, take it up with your conservative source.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
yes, poor al overestimated the intelligence of the public, atleast the conservative portion. whats the word "initiative" mean? aww.. crack open a dictionary, he didn't say he invented it. but ofcourse crack pot conservative pundits have no problem bending the truth for their sheep.


and if you know the definitions of initiative, well.. now you know how much conservative pundits like rush respect your intelligence:)


baaaaa!!!
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
No, thank YOU for putting all the best lies in one place, so they can all be blown away with one post!!!

Before you get all carried away breaking an arm patting yourself on the back, you have done little to prove that it was a bunch of lies ( with the exception of the Atta thing, which everyone already knew). I will agree that you did a lot of blowing but only to point out where someone else did something similiar not to prove any falsehoods. Nice try though.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
No, thank YOU for putting all the best lies in one place, so they can all be blown away with one post!!!

Before you get all carried away breaking an arm patting yourself on the back, you have done little to prove that it was a bunch of lies ( with the exception of the Atta thing, which everyone already knew). I will agree that you did a lot of blowing but only to point out where someone else did something similiar not to prove any falsehoods. Nice try though.

He may not have disproved the lies, but he did demonstrate that everything Clinton did that got the conservatives' collective panites in a bunch, the Repubs have done and done it orders of magnitude worse (ie, Iran Contra/Whitewater).
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
His crimes against America's populace (the middle class mostly) could be considered grounds for impeachment.

Well almost anyways.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I bet John Ashcroft is running that website, and after he gets Patriot Act part 2 passed, he'll just strip you of your citizenship and deport you.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I bet John Ashcroft is running that website, and after he gets Patriot Act part 2 passed, he'll just strip you of your citizenship and deport you.

Then define you as an "enemy combatant," and jail you for an indefinate amount of time all without access to legal representation. Don't forget that they would arrest you in secret initially.
 

Minkee

Member
Jun 22, 2002
53
0
0
Originally posted by: TNTrulez
It's all about the economy. Clinton had a good economy and that's why he had two terms. With this economy, Bush might not win the next election.

For the love of God he better not. I swear if he is considered a hero, I am moving to canada. I am so poor because of this man being in office. I can't get a job, I can't get any grants or loans and my parents are in a crap situation all together. They used to be the 3rd highest grossing realtors in San Antonio until this past year. They lost a substantal amount of sales due to the economy drop. Its so bad that my mom had to go get another job and stop working with my dad. She has been working with him since the first Bush was in office. During Clinton's time we were doing much better. Sure the taxes weren't great for the self employed, but the economy was at least stable.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I read the first 5 points and they're actually really sad. If I wanted to bring up ways to impeach him I could do much better than that. Those are just really, really, really weak.