Should George W. Bush be Impeached?

[kipperthefrog]

Good to see not all wealthy people are for Bu$h. Good ol lucas.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Can we quit with the relating Star Wars with the current political atmosphere?

 

Seriously, it's annoying.

 

Annoying or not, the comparison is valid. I was intrigued by Toms' quote and I, too, noted the similarity of Palpatine's comments to those that were made with regard to the necessity of the Patriot Act.

 

It's no coincidence that writers of literature and film create grand conspiracies for their works. They need only look at real life to draw inspiration. They take the facts or what seem to be possible political motivations and abstract them into wonderful plots for their movies and novels for our enjoyment. But we'd be fools not to learn from them, for the duplicity, deception, greed, and struggle for status and prestige are human traits right here on Earth... not some galaxy far, far away.

 

The possibility of the United States government slipping away and into the hands of those interested in power and domination is something that frightens and concerns me.

 

Bush & Co. are actively attempting to dominate the Judicial Branch and the attempts to limit the Senate filibuster is evidence of this. I just received an email from someone the other day which urged me to write my representatives in support of that effort. I wrote that person back, asking if they really understood the implications and all I got in return was an email that implied that since they were Christian and Bush was chosen by god to lead the nation, it had to be the right thing to do.

 

Bush & Co. limit the ability of dissenting voice anywhere near the President when he travels; they limit the dissenting questions of media in press conferences; they cry foul when criticized at each opportunity, but criticize opponents at every opportunity. The message is that it is unpatriotic to dissent with the Bush Empire.

 

Slowly, but surely, our freedoms will be continually eroded until we end in a theocratically controlled dictatorship if things continue the way they are. I don't think it'll come to that, however. I think that eventually, the people will have had enough and the widespread corruption that exists in the current administration will be publically exposed; the Republican party will suffer an embarassment; and Democracy will again be the norm for a time. But, above all, I think the extent of corruption that exists in the Bush administration will surprise us all.

[kipperthefrog]

-click-

 

Edit:

 

I wrote that person back, asking if they really understood the implications and all I got in return was an email that implied that since they were Christian and Bush was chosen by god to lead the nation, it had to be the right thing to do.

 

Shocking statement. More proof that religion is something people use to get what they want.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Annoying or not, the comparison is valid. I was intrigued by Toms' quote and I, too, noted the similarity of Palpatine's comments to those that were made with regard to the necessity of the Patriot Act.

True we're leaning that way, but we're far from where it is in Star Wars.

 

Plus comparing Palpatine to Bush is insulting to the character.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That's the whole deal with religious fundamentalists - they're too gullible.

 

Bush has no proof God wants him to be President, but he says so, and all the Christian fanatics believe him and vote for him due to that:rolleyes.

 

I wonder what would happen if Michael Moore told Bush that Jesus came to him in a dream and told him to write Dude, Where's my country? Maybe he should try:D...

[kipperthefrog]

Aren't you guys afraid that we will get arrested for speacking out aginst Bu$h? If Skinwalker dissapears from the forums, then we know his case is proven for him.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

"Then there's San Franciscan Barry Reingold, who was awakened from his afternoon nap by a buzzing intercom on Oct. 23. He called down to the street to find out who it was. ‘The FBI,’ was the response. He buzzed the two men up, but decided to meet them in the hall.

 

‘I was a little bit shaken up,’ says Mr. Reingold. ‘I mean, why would the FBI be interested in me, a 60-year-old retired phone company worker?’

 

When they asked if he worked out at a certain gym, he realized the reason behind the visit. The gym is where he lifts weights -- and expounds on his political views." Kris Axtman, "Political Dissent Can Bring Federal Agents to Door," Christian Science Monitor, January 8, 2002. See also, Sam Stanton, Emily Bazar, "Security Collides With Civil Rights, War On Terrorism Has Unforeseen Results," Modesto Bee, September 28, 2003.

 

But we're getting off-topic here.

[ShadowTemplar]

@ The "elections" in 01 and 04: There have been repeated claims that "slightly over half of the American population" wanted Bu$h in office (Skinwalker et al). That is incorrect. Slightly more than half of the voting population voted him in. But that only amounts to roughly a quarter of the total population, since half of the population isn't entitled to voting.

 

@ The US economy: I am surprised and astonished every time I debate economy with an American Neo-con-man. Surprised - and not a little dismayed - at the lack of knowledge of Keynesean economic theory in Keynes' own home country...

 

I'll give you a (very) brief review:

 

Tax cuts to the rich are bad for the economy.

 

Public welfare is good for the economy.

 

You want proof? Good.

 

After WWII, the US had emerged as the dominant economic power in the world. Since then, the US - from fear of communism and an inability to distinguish between communism and social-liberalism - moved away from the Keynesean economic theory towards pre-Keynesean lassie faire economic theory, while Europe moved from lassie faire economies to welfare states (more or less). The net result: The US has been on a steady decline (in both relative and absolute terms) while the EU and China are experiencing a massive upturn. In fact the EU are - even with the inclusion of the impoverished ex-soviet countries in the east - the dominant economic power in the world today, while China is the dominant power in education, due to massive, government sponsored, education programs.

 

@ The definition of Treason: Bush aids, abets and gives shelter to the following enemies of America: Rupert Murdoch, Pope Ratzinger, Donald Rumsfiend, and Paul Warfowitz. To name but a few. IIRC, aiding and sheltering enemies of the country were part of the definition of treason.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes, the EU economic power just recently went past that of the USA.

 

It's easy for Bush's base - "the haves and the have-mores", who can afford health-care to not want to contribute to those who can't, it seems. I'd like to see Bush starve in the streets for a month for then to come back into the White House and tell us about how welfare isn't needed:rolleyes:.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes, the EU economic power just recently went past that of the USA.

 

It's easy for Bush's base - "the haves and the have-mores", who can afford health-care to not want to contribute to those who can't, it seems. I'd like to see Bush starve in the streets for a month for then to come back into the White House and tell us about how welfare isn't needed:rolleyes:.

 

As for socialism taking away incentive to work: That is a fallacy. Norway was just found to have the #1 most efficient work force in the world, in terms of goods produced per man-hour.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

@ The "elections" in 01 and 04: There have been repeated claims that "slightly over half of the American population" wanted Bu$h in office (Skinwalker et al). That is incorrect. Slightly more than half of the voting population voted him in. But that only amounts to roughly a quarter of the total population, since half of the population isn't entitled to voting.

 

True. One could argue, however, that the voting population is fairly representative of the entire population. I wouldn't, but one could. I think that the numbers for eligible voters who actually voted was near half, but of course there are those that are precluded from voting for various reasons: age limitations, citizenship limitations, convicted felons, etc.

 

The latter category, in my opinion, is an intentional move, since most felons in prison today are African American and traditionally vote Democrat, disenfranchisement of their right to vote removes a very large segment of society, particularly when you factor in the number of African Americans who are imprisoned.

 

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

@ The US economy: I am surprised and astonished every time I debate economy with an American Neo-con-man. Surprised - and not a little dismayed - at the lack of knowledge of Keynesean economic theory in Keynes' own home country...

 

As am I. I've never understood why so many smart people choose to believe in something so abstract, unfounded and wierd as "trickle-down-economics."

 

The idea was always (from Reagan's administration) that you give tax breaks to the rich and they are free to do more with larger chunks of money and thus create jobs and opportunities for the poor. Like mowing their lawns, I suppose.

 

The reality is that the rich save their money and the poor don't. When rich people get an unexpected increase in funds, the generally invest it. Whereas the poor spend every thing they make. Every bit of welfare -food stamps, WIC, etc., goes directly into the local economy. It doesn't get saved.

 

It's far better for the economy to give breaks to the poor, who will put the money back into the economy now than to the rich, who may not ever put it back into the economy by locking it up in stocks, bonds, CDs, and -most tragically- foreign investments.

[kipperthefrog]

So what happens if all the money eventualy gets locked up by the rich?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

So what happens if all the money eventualy gets locked up by the rich?

 

That would be impossible, as SOME of the money has to be spent for the necessities of life, and rich people also buy extravagant things. However they just have SO MUCH that they can afford to save more than they spend.

 

It would never reach a point where they would save ALL of it.

[kipperthefrog]

Almost all of it

[Mike Windu]

Also improbable. As ET already stated, they do have to spend it on stuff.

 

Besides, rich rappers can't resist t3h iCe

[toms]

I saw an article around somewhere called "How to save money like a milionaire!". Which basically said that the richer you are, the more cautious you are with your money.

 

Most of the really rich in america don't pay any taxes anyway, as they have lawyers and accountants who figure out the best ways to prevent them paying any.

 

That said, teh real change/inequality of US taxes is the ratio between personal:company tax. When tax was invented it almost all came from companies, with only a tiny bit coming from individuals. Now, after years of tax cuts for businesses to try an make them able to compete with more efficient firms abroad, its almost the other way around. Isn't it 8 out of 10 of the 10 biggest US companies don't pay ANY tax? Crazy!

 

PS/ Side note: there is a plastics company that owns two factories in the UK and one in the US. The two in the UK make money, the one in the US looses money. They are short of cash so they are closing the two in the UK, but keeping the one in the US open because they get money from the US government to do so. Understandably the UK workers don't feel this is entirely fair!.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Surprised - and not a little dismayed - at the lack of knowledge of Keynesean economic theory in Keynes' own home country...

 

 

A bit of nitpicking but you do realize that Keynes was british right? His theories were first applied in America due to the great depression but that's all.

[CapNColostomy]

Pffft..."Bush promised blah blah blah and didn't deliver! Impeach him!" If we held people in public office to the standard of honesty, or else we impeach them, there would be alot of out of work politicians in the ever increasing unemployment lines.

 

Also, to blame Bush alone for America being the most hated nation in the world is naive at best. One of my earliest television memories as a child is one of seeing people in the streets of Iran burning American flags and mock ups of President Carter. But I suppose they were really just pissed at Bush. People have hated America for a long time, and will always find some excuse to continue doing so. I call it jealousy. Don't believe me? Watch. As soon as another president is elected, we'll see if nations throughout the world, and in particular the Middle East magically like the United States or not.

 

This has to be the worst excuse to generate activity in a forum I've ever seen.

[toms]

I don't like bush. I think he's a dangerous idiot. But i don't think there are grounds to impeach him. There are more grounds than there were to justify the witchhunt there was against clinton, but just because you made a mistake once is no idea to repeat it again for fairness.

 

You might find that less people are burning stuff if the policies actually changed and became fairer when the presidents change. But sadly, just like our system, the politicians may change, but very little else ever does. The politicians are to scared of powerful lobby groups and the press to ever risk making any big decisions that might change people's view of the UK or US.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Thank you for contributing. This was getting boring:cool:.

 

Also, to blame Bush alone for America being the most hated nation in the world is naive at best.

Nope. No one is saying Bush caused anti-Americanism in the first place. But he caused anti-Americanism to flare up again, and certainly didn't help matters when he insulted basically the whole European continent (the "Old Europe" statement being just one example).

 

People have hated America for a long time, and will always find some excuse to continue doing so.

Not so.

 

What about actually listening and finding out why they hate you so much? Much of the dislike towards the States stems from past imperialist campaigns (Chile, Iran, Noriega, and so on).

 

I call it jealousy. Don't believe me? Watch. As soon as another president is elected, we'll see if nations throughout the world, and in particular the Middle East magically like the United States or not.

Fallacy.

Other countries like Norway and Canada are just as free as the USA is. In fact, there are a couple of rights abroad that do not exist in the States. Ever seen a Norwegian flag get burned? Or a Canadian flag? Or a Danish flag? Nope.

 

Maybe it is that Norway hasn't got a history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders, or maybe it just is that our magical skills are better than yours?

 

This has to be the worst excuse to generate activity in a forum I've ever seen.

Each to his own.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Thank you for contributing. This was getting boring:cool:.

 

 

Nope. No one is saying Bush caused anti-Americanism in the first place. But he caused anti-Americanism to flare up again, and certainly didn't help matters when he insulted basically the whole European continent (the "Old Europe" statement being just one example).

 

"Nope"? No one is saying that? I'll see your "Nope" and raise you a "Yep". Becuase if you can be bothered to actually read the first paragraph of the first post on the first page of this thread, you would see that our very own SkinWalker did in fact say and I quote "George W. Bush made us (America) the most hated nation in the world."

 

"Nope" my ass...

 

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Not so.

 

What about actually listening and finding out why they hate you so much? Much of the dislike towards the States stems from past imperialist campaigns (Chile, Iran, Noriega, and so on).

 

Lemme see if I follow your logic correctly. You start your rebutal with "Not so", as if to say I'm wrong and people haven't always hated America. But then, as if to do a complete 360, you follow up by saying that people do in fact hate America and always have. Weird ****. You lost me there big'un. And what about actually listening to all these jealous-ass whiners? For what? To be further irritated with their ignorance? They (you) don't like my governments foreign policies, so naturally, rather than bitch at the people responsible, they (you) take it out on me, and averagae law abiding citizen who has absolutely nothing to do with said policies. I'm a dumb, fat American because you don't like the current leadership around here. What the **** ever.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Fallacy.

Other countries like Norway and Canada are just as free as the USA is. In fact, there are a couple of rights abroad that do not exist in the States. Ever seen a Norwegian flag get burned? Or a Canadian flag? Or a Danish flag? Nope.

 

Maybe it is that Norway hasn't got a history of overthrowing democratically elected leaders, or maybe it just is that our magical skills are better than yours?

 

You said it. Norway and Canada are very unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Maybe if either of these nations did anything worth while just sometimes, you might actually see people getting pissed at them here and there. As it is, most people can only find Canada on a map because it's right above the U.S. As for Norway, where the **** is that? And who cares?

 

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Each to his own.

 

I did NOT need to be told that.

[Spider AL]

you would see that our very own SkinWalker did in fact say and I quote "George W. Bush made us (America) the most hated nation in the world."

 

"Nope" my ass...

The Bush administration has indeed made America the most hated nation in the world... AGAIN. There's the distinction you're missing, my friend.

 

And your vulgarities don't aid your argument, far from it. We don't need to hear about your "donkey".

 

Lemme see if I follow your logic correctly. You start your rebutal with "Not so", as if to say I'm wrong and people haven't always hated America. But then, as if to do a complete 360, you follow up by saying that people do in fact hate America and always have. Weird ****. You lost me there big'un.

Read your statement and his response again. You lost yourself, his response makes perfect sense and is not self-contradicting in any way.

 

I'm a dumb, fat American because you don't like the current leadership around here. What the **** ever.

I for one have no idea what you weigh, but you're not making yourself seem very intelligent on here, that's for sure. I wish you'd try to debate rationally instead of insulting your country's detractors.

 

As it is, most people can only find Canada on a map because it's right above the U.S. As for Norway, where the **** is that? And who cares?

HA! Someone ban this utter troll.

[lukeskywalker1]

Lets not forget 9-11, if I remember correctly we were not at war with any Middle Eastern country then (you could argue the Gulf War hadn't ended, but it was sorta inactive, it was cold... so thats irrelavent)

 

 

Let me get this straight: Its ok for Middle Easterners (well, actually Islamics) to fly plane "bombs" into our buildings, killing thousands of US citizens. On the other hand, when our own leader bombs em back, hes wrong? Hussein did support terrorist leaders. It was, and still is a War on Terror, and you have to hit them anyway you can. (Oh, and im not just talking as an American citizen, im 50% lebanese, and not even a native of this country.)

 

Remember Pearl Harbor? Japan attacked us just like on 9-11, and we bombed their butts back to the stone age.

 

Due to reconstruction efforts, however, Japan survived. Look at it now... almost all of us have Japanese products in our homes? Any play video games? Anyone watch Anime on a Saturday morning (hey, whats wrong with cartoons? Im an Escaflowne fan, lol) Back on subject, I think the same thing could happen in the Middle East... it could become a technoligical powerhouse in the next 20-30 years.

 

 

Yeah, I am pro-Bush. Why? Because Hes not Kerry. Actually, while that was a sarcastic comment, its sort of true. While I am uncertain about the war, I wait to see its results. I am not in favor of abortion, or homosexuality. And while Bush is in office I can be assured that my Christian lifestyle is a lot safer, than if Kerry was in office.

 

Its not about what someone told me... its about my morals, and my ideas. I think Kerry could harm my religion, which is important to me. He is Catholic, I am Protestant, we believe very different things. He is for things, that I am against. Besides, in my opinion, he deliberatly made his entire campaign the opposite of what Bush's was, just so he could please the Anti-Bush crowd. Obviously, despite what the media says when they are reporting on the Anti-Bush marches and what not, Pro-Bush population is clearly bigger.

 

 

 

On the another note, I think Skin's first arguement is clearly one sided. It only focuses on the bad. I think its more fair, at least for this debate, to present Bush's good qualities along with his bad.

 

For example, I can say all the bad things I want about Joe over there, and people will think he is aweful. On the other hand if I tell his good and bad qualities, people can make a better unbiased decision on the quality of his character. See my point?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Let me get this straight: Its ok for Middle Easterners (well, actually Islamics) to fly plane "bombs" into our buildings, killing thousands of US citizens. On the other hand, when our own leader bombs em back, hes wrong? Hussein did support terrorist leaders. It was, and still is a War on Terror, and you have to hit them anyway you can.

"Islamics"? Actually I believe it's just extremists as religion really has no basis, it's used as an excuse just like abortion clinic bombings.

 

Second Hussein didn't support terrorist leaders, they want the exact opposite of what he wanted.

 

And 2 wrongs don't make a right. Terrorist action isn't exactly very "American".

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Remember Pearl Harbor? Japan attacked us just like on 9-11, and we bombed their butts back to the stone age.

 

They declared war, completely different.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Due to reconstruction efforts, however, Japan survived.

 

Only because they agreed to American Imperialization. And they weren't allowed to hold a military.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

And while Bush is in office I can be assured that my Christian lifestyle is a lot safer, than if Kerry was in office.

 

... That is without a doubt the most retarded thing I've ever heard and I hope you feel ashamed for saying that.

Not just out of principle but as a christian. You'd let a political figure shake your religious beliefs? You need to work on your convictions.

 

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Its not about what someone told me... its about my morals, and my ideas. I think Kerry could harm my religion, which is important to me. He is Catholic, I am Protestant, we believe very different things.

 

Usually Catholics are the more religiously oppressive, I think it's commendable that he could put his own personal morals to the side when deciding to say people should have freedoms instead of religious indoctrination.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Besides, in my opinion, he deliberatly made his entire campaign the opposite of what Bush's was, just so he could please the Anti-Bush crowd.

Probably, I only wanted him to win in attempts he'd be shot and Edwards could assume presidency. Perverse, morbid, and slightly immoral. But whatever.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Obviously, despite what the media says when they are reporting on the Anti-Bush marches and what not, Pro-Bush population is clearly bigger.

More like voter apathy is rising more and more.

 

 

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

On the another note, I think Skin's first arguement is clearly one sided. It only focuses on the bad. I think its more fair, at least for this debate, to present Bush's good qualities along with his bad.

 

I can only think of one (good) thing he's done.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

For example, I can say all the bad things I want about Joe over there, and people will think he is aweful. On the other hand if I tell his good and bad qualities, people can make a better unbiased decision on the quality of his character. See my point?

 

No because you didn't even show some examples of good things Bush has done. If you wish bring that whole thing up you need to bring something to the plate.

[edlib]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

On the another note, I think Skin's first arguement is clearly one sided. It only focuses on the bad. I think its more fair, at least for this debate, to present Bush's good qualities along with his bad.

For example, I can say all the bad things I want about Joe over there, and people will think he is aweful. On the other hand if I tell his good and bad qualities, people can make a better unbiased decision on the quality of his character. See my point?

And yet you clearly bought into all the bad things about John Kerry's politics in the exact same way.

 

And about the phrase "Christian Lifestyle"... this is clearly one of the most tolerant nations to ever exist towards religion, and Christianity in particlular. We have had 43 openly practicing Christian presidents in a row. I would venture to guess that at least 90% of all the members of Congress, Senate, and the Supreme Court through history have also been practicing Christians. (And if that number is wrong in any way, then it's too low.)

 

No one president would ever be able to truly affect that in any meaningful way... and certainly not Kerry if he managed to be elected.

 

On a Tangent for a moment:

 

I'm really not sure how this nation could possibly get more friendly towards Christians, short of becoming a Christian Theocracy, and then becoming totally intolerant of anyone or any practice and belief that doesn't match up with the State-Sponsored religion. Re-writing all of our laws to match Biblical standards, and strictly enforcing those laws, even on those who don't happen to believe that way.

 

Christians are clearly a powerful and overwhelming majority in this country, clearly in control (insofar as most of the members of the government are Christians) of the political systems of the country (something I seem to keep being reminded of whenever one of these types of debates comes up...) yet I keep hearing language that suggests a tiny and much persecuted minority, subject to the cruel whims of an uncaring and hostile goverment.

 

Can you really have it both ways? I find it all very odd.