Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (2101)	4/1/2001 9:01:55 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Hark! "Global Village Idiot" would be an appropriate name for not only Bush but those members of his cabinet. Or how about, "Lord of the Lies.? He's broken campaign promises right and left. He claims he was a "compassionate man" but he's cut funds for children's programs. Former President Clinton wanted arsenic levels reduced in water. Bush opposed that legislation! I think Bush wants to kill us regardless of party affiliation, although I believe all conservatives should HAVE to drink Bush's arsenic laden water. Clinton wanted to reduce arsenic in the water. Bush doesn't. Bush refused to sign the global warming treaty. Former Vice-President Al Gore supported it. Bush refused to curtail caron-dioxide emissions. I believe Gore would have supported it. Bush humiliated South Korea's President and the German chancellor.Once again, we are in a Cold-War with North Korea, Russia and maybe even our allies. I'm sure the list continues. We should make a list of all the campaign pledges that Bush has broken. He's totally out-of-step with most Americans. And to make matters worse, he hood-winked liberals and moderates in Congress. Anne Coulter, a conservative writers said "that Mr. Bush has shown "how easy it is to honswoggle liberals. All you have to do is go around calling yourself nice," she said. "He just treats liberals like small children having nightmares. Darn if it didn't work." Mr. Bush himself could have been making a similar point March 24 when he joked at the annual Girdiron dinner in Washington that Democratice power broker Roberts S. Strauss had told him. " You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are ones you have to concentrate on." Excerpt from "Bush Hits A Speed Bump," by Adam Clymer in The New York Times Sunday, April 1, 200l. .............................................**********************........................................................ Dear jttmab, I couldn't believe how naive the Democrats acted when Bush turned up in Washington as President. Teddy Kennedy and clan showed up at the White House almost immediately. If that wasn't bad enough the Democrats clapped for Bush when he popped in at their off-site conference weekend in late January or early February. Then, they confirmed everyone of his appointments except for one who had problems with an illegal alien who lived in her home.

To: jttmab who wrote (2101)	4/2/2001 12:53:33 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Democrats Take Bush to Task Over Environment " Bush ignored a 1999 National Academy of Sciences report concluding that the old arsenic standard is no longer adequate for public health protection. Sunday April 1 7:35 AM ET By JoAnne Allen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats fired another volley in a battle with the White House over environmental rules, accusing President Bush of leading ``an assault'' on the environment in a bow to special interests. In the Democrat's weekly radio address, Washington Gov. Gary Locke said U.S. environmental protection rules are coming under attack ``and the person leading that charge is none other than President Bush.'' ``In his barely two months in office, President Bush has led an assault on the environment, the likes of which our country has not seen in decades,'' Locke said Saturday. Locke accused Bush a sacrificing the environment ``at the altar'' of special interests groups. Congressional Democrats and environmental activists contend the White House has been too eager to ease environmental rules that could be costly for mining, oil, timber and other industries. Democratic lawmakers this week launched a counter-offensive to White House decisions to suspend tight new standards for arsenic in drinking water and curb mining waste. The president also reversed a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants -- viewed by many scientists as a major cause of global warming. He also rejected an international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions. ``In an already long list of actions that will harm environmental quality, one of the most egregious was his recent announcement that he would roll back regulations that limit the amounts of arsenic in our drinking water,'' Locke said in the radio address. He said Bush ignored a 1999 National Academy of Sciences report concluding that the old arsenic standard is no longer adequate for public health protection. ``So why did George Bush cut back on protections against arsenic in our drinking water? Is he pro-arsenic? Of course not. The problem is that special interests, and not George Bush, seem to be controlling America's environmental safety programs,'' Lock said. ``It is the wealthy donors and the special interests that helped put him in the White House who want to loosen environmental controls,'' Locke said. ``We urge the president in the strongest terms to protect our environment, and to shift his priorities away from the special interests and back to the people he swore to protect,'' Locke concluded. The Washington Post on Saturday said the Bush administration had been stung by the furious reaction to its decisions on the environment. The paper said Bush aides have held meetings in recent days to plot strategy to polish the president's environmental credentials. dailynews.yahoo.com

To: jttmab who wrote (2101)	4/2/2001 11:26:18 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Of course the Europeans loved Slick. The coward who, when it was his turn to put on the uniform, instead fled the country, seemingly never saw a brushfire war he wasn't perfectly willing to send other mother's sons to die in. The Europeans sat for YEARS with their fingers up their behinds and watched that Balkans situation develop and deteriorate and did NOTHING. They hardly can claim no framework existed for them to work within; they had the EU; the European armed forced talk to each other through NATO. So of course they were happy to have Slick send in the Yanks AGAIN to save their bacon. Do you wonder why they are an outpost of the American Empire instead of the other way around? About Slick's international respect: Do you remember all the respect he got during Monicagate? Or does that not count? Strong rumor in Europe is that the EU will refuse to accredit Bush's ambassdorial nomination to the EU. We shall see. I'll bet when push comes to shove that won't happen. $500? The Kyoto treaty. That's the one that says the US has to drastically cut back on CO2 emissions, while China and other "underdeveloped" countries drastically increase theirs, right? No thanks. If other nations want a greenhouse gas treaty, they'll have to do better than that. This treaty already went before the Senate and was slaughtered 95-0. Did you know that? Children. Why are a parents children not the parents responsibility and a local governmental responsibility? Why is it the job of the federal government to raise your kids? Marriage tax penalty...bogus BS. I've asked this question of conservatives before and none has ever answered it... Three married couples, same deductions... A. One earner, one job, $100,000 B: One earner, two jobs, $100,000 C: Two earners, total $100,000 [$10K/$90K or 50/50 or any combination you choose.] Who should pay more in taxes and why? What's wrong with the same tax in all three situations. Same family income, same tax. Apparently you aren't the ilk I was addressing. You must have missed some of the disasters predicted for Bush, many on this very thread and many by its unlamented founder, Don Juan AKA lawdog AKA rachelsmith AKA brutusdog AKA bigsablepoint. Impeachment by now. 500,000-1,000,000 rioters at the inauguration that had to be put down by federal troops. Depression by now. Oh, and I do know that a Presidential election is held each year that is evenly divisible by 4 and the winner takes office the following January. Finding one ignorant conservative doesn't mean all are. If you wish to apply a rule like that, I will have no problem at all proving all liberals are ignorant. I have several candidates in mind right now.