Bush could be impeached

Wow, that is an even more petty and pointless idea then impeaching Clinton on perjury.

Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by peter2002
They got him. Only 2 years into his monarchy, oops I mean presidency, Bush has broken a federal law and could go to jail.

Remember "Boxgate," the incident last week at a St. Louis warehouse in which President Bush touted small business and things made in America? And the problem was, he was standing behind a bunch of boxes that had tape over the words "Made in China"?

Covering up the "Made In" labels is against the law, a violation of venerable Title 19, Chapter 4, Subtitle II, Part 1, Sec. 134.11, which "requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently" as possible, "in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser . . . [the] name of the country of origin of the article."

Further, "any person who, with intent to conceal the information . . . defaces, destroys, removes, alters, covers, obscures, or obliterates any mark required under the provisions of this chapter shall -- (1) upon conviction for the first violation . . . be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . ." A year in the slammer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57958-2003Jan28.html

Click to expand...

What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal

Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal

Click to expand...

true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys...

Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal

Click to expand...

That raises a lot of questions.

What if no one gives a **** about boxes?

Um... if you read the article and looked at it for a while you can read that.

The Person who put the tape on the boxes could techincally go to jail, not bush. Sure bush wanted all the hype of American Economy he sure got it right, every american product at some point was in china.

Really, look on your TV's, computers, phones, printers, heck EVERYTHING.

GET REAL!

it *is* funny, though.

Dont think so

Ah Bush, the perfect conversation piece!

Originally posted by Macmaniac
Ah Bush, the perfect conversation piece!

Click to expand...

Yes, true, I think about bush all the time. I love talking about bush. I love thinking about bush. I probably think about bush at least once every couple of minutes...

Oh wait, you're talking about George W. Bush... Oh, nevermind.

Meh, usually here in Canada (or in toronto at least) George Bush is mainly an object of ridcule (spelling) or mockery for his stupidity. Not to say the bonehead we have leading our country is any smarter. Heh.

Originally posted by ecino1
Meh, usually here in Canada (or in toronto at least) George Bush is mainly an object of ridcule (spelling) or mockery for his stupidity. Not to say the bonehead we have leading our country is any smarter. Heh.

Click to expand...

In good American fun: It's "ridicule" not "ridcule." Toronto is capitalized.

Just kidding.

Re: Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by G4scott


true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys...

Click to expand...

Yea it's the sore losers, yea, ok, and Bush won the popular vote, oh yea, that's right, and Katherine Harris Reb. let the recount total show the Gore won the state of Florida, yea, that's right, those sore losers! Bush didn't steal the elction and his father didn't help Regan steal it either! Those 'sore loserman guys'!

If only they'ed educate themselves

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by Kid Red


Yea it's the sore losers, yea, ok, and Bush won the popular vote, oh yea, that's right, and Katherine Harris Reb. let the recount total show the Gore won the state of Florida, yea, that's right, those sore losers! Bush didn't steal the elction and his father didn't help Regan steal it either! Those 'sore loserman guys'!

If only they'ed educate themselves

Click to expand...

OMG, I would say something, but it'd be too easy.

False premise

You forget the media has exemption to this rule/law. A media producer/editor that does not wish to promote a brand or name or who has not obtained permission to use a brand/name/trademark MUST cover it up. Look at every sports show, the name is covered up on the bottom of the Plasma monitors they use.

For the guy who said Bush lost the popular vote even in Florida, what a loser! Gore tried to get votes disregarded from military voters and anything that had a bad "chad" was a vote for Gore. Talk about a loser? You are enjoying the freedoms you do because of Reagan helping to disarm the world. It was a high cost to pay, but a worthy one. Clinton moved funds from spending in the military to prop up social reform, now look where we are at. Finding he was taking credit for a fake economy (dotcoms, enrons, MCIs) and facing military so underfunded 1/3 are below poverty lines.

Re: Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by G4scott


true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys...

Click to expand...

I met George Bush during his campaign for president. I like him as an individual and I think he's a very solid president that brings respect back to the Whitehorse, which Clitoris and Hitlery lost.

If you think he'll get axed for something like that you're not thinking. If Clitoris can get away with oral sex in the bathroom of the White House from an intern then George has a lot of breathing room.

Oh please...

Even though I hate the guy, who are we gonna replace him with... the walking corpse Cheney?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush could be impeached

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I met George Bush during his campaign for president. I like him as an individual and I think he's a very solid president that brings respect back to the Whitehorse, which Clitoris and Hitlery lost.

If you think he'll get axed for something like that you're not thinking. If Clitoris can get away with oral sex in the bathroom of the White House from an intern then George has a lot of breathing room.

Click to expand...

Thats true. Its not like we should be worried that the biggest campaign contributer to him, the ones who gave his staff free corporate jet use during the florida debacle, and dictated whom he should appoint to his high positions was Enron... (remember them?)
I guess financial corruption is OK, as long as enough can share in the spoils and the poor saps who get screwed can be convinced that kinky behavior in the white office is worse for the country. Moral arrogance is the opiate of the masses.

John
wishing I had written this on my lovely iMac, not this dell box...

peter, why do you post these stories and put these crazy titles on them.

Damn.

Uneducated answers

Uneducated answer too ... ENRON gave MILLIONS to the democratic campaign as well. And just because contributions were accepted doesn't mean they were KNOWN corrupt. After all, ENRON hoodwinked their own employees into thinking they were making millions, when actually they were losing BILLLIONS!!!!

If you don't realize that Bush's care of "big business" and oil are the two companies that make the world go around, then take an economics lesson. I guess you also think, tax cuts being proposed are for the "rich"? How fair is it exactly for someone to say "because you have more you owe 75%, because I make less I owe 10%?"

Re: Uneducated answers

Originally posted by adzoox
If you don't realize that Bush's care of "big business" and oil are the two companies that make the world go around, then take an economics lesson. I guess you also think, tax cuts being proposed are for the "rich"? How fair is it exactly for someone to say "because you have more you owe 75%, because I make less I owe 10%?"

Click to expand...

I'll take an economics lesson when you take a tax lesson.

It is NOT fair for one person to pay 75% of their income in taxes while someone else pays 10%, no one ever said it was. The rub is that what you described is not the way the taxing system works now.

Right now, if you take into account all taxes of any sort, on average, everyone pays approximately the same percentage of their income in taxes (excepting the extraordinarily rich who pay less and the extraordinarily poor who pay less too).

Bush's proposed tax cuts will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and the net effect of that will to make federal income taxes look more fair, but if you look at the overall tax burden, the less wealthy will have to pay a larger share of taxes. This will take what is essentially a flat taxation system and make it regressive (taxing the wealthy less than the poor), which is just as unfair, if not more so, as taxing the wealthy more than the poor.

Nope

The top 4% of the country (monetarily) already pay 90% of the taxes. Wealthy to Uncle Sam is over $75,000 - please don't tell me that I am in the same bracket ($84,000) as the guy next door, ($45,000) - a flat tax is the only fair tax. After, business taxes (which the "wealthy" own business, sales taxes, property taxes, local fees (taxes by another name) - the average person that makes over $250,000 pays out the wazoo, almost 74.5% - now, that doesn't necessarily mean they pay that, that is the effective tax rate - there are business losses, tax deferred items, charity, etc, etc. My figures are actual figures taken from the IRS, if you care to peak.

mcrain,
my mom and dad are now making over $150,000 a year. After their tax this year. All of it mind you, social security, etc, they had a true net income of just over 88,000. I made just under 40k. I paid 0 tax and got back 2,000 I paid, plus another 2,000. Now, how is that fair? Lets just go to a flat tax. Personally, I don't think the government should get more than God, so 10% of everyone's income, no deductions, not writeoffs, just 10% of what you make. For corporations, 20%, small business, 15%.

I bet that would generate more revenue than anything we have ever done in the past.

Re: Nope

Originally posted by adzoox
The top 4% of the country (monetarily) already pay 90% of the taxes. Wealthy to Uncle Sam is over $75,000 - please don't tell me that I am in the same bracket ($84,000) as the guy next door, ($45,000) - a flat tax is the only fair tax. After, business taxes (which the "wealthy" own business, sales taxes, property taxes, local fees (taxes by another name) - the average person that makes over $250,000 pays out the wazoo, almost 74.5% - now, that doesn't necessarily mean they pay that, that is the effective tax rate - there are business losses, tax deferred items, charity, etc, etc. My figures are actual figures taken from the IRS, if you care to peak.

Click to expand...

Look, you're wrong. This is what I do for a living.

You're taking a piece of information (that the wealthiest 4% pay 90% of the federal income taxes) and equating that to the wealthy paying a higher percentage of their income in all taxes than the poor. You've falled for the "SPIN." Oh, and the rich don't pay 90% of their income in taxes, the 36.9 percent of federal income taxes they pay happens to make up 90% of the federal income taxes collected. There is a difference.

Again, taxes and tax policy is what I do for a living. If you really are interested in a quick tax education, I'd be happy to remove the SPIN wool from in front of your eyes.

For the record, yes, I'm a democrat, but not when it comes to tax analysis. Taxes are like math. 1+2+3+4=5+5. What the political parties like to do is argue about how it's unfair that the left side has different numbers, while the other side argues about how the right side has bigger numbers! The fact is they are equal.

A similar thing happens with taxes. You can put on blinders and argue all you want about sales taxes or income taxes or whatever, but until you take the blinders off, it's hard to have a real appreciation for the complexity of the taxing system, and what happens to the system as a whole as you change one thing and not others.