Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Zuma, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. Zuma

    Zuma Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
    172398 responses

    86% Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
    4% No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
    8% No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
    2% I don't know.
    [​IMG]
  2. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Pretty much sums up who the fringe elements on this board are. No names necessary- we all know who among you support flushing the constitution down the toilet. 86%, do you think them Dems might actually be thinking its time to start being an opposition party again? Nah..probably not.
  3. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    Yah, like an Internet poll easily bombed by leftist DU fanatics has any credibility.
    In the real world (try visiting it sometime) Bush's popularity #s continue to rise with every NYT leak of classified information revealing the administration's sincere persuit of Islamic terrorists. Gotta luv it!

    Three more years
  4. Zuma

    Zuma Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Who is this? http://www.rasmussenreports.com
  5. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
  6. Zuma

    Zuma Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Not what...but who?
  7. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    wow, :eek: thats alot of leftist fanatics!
  8. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I know who

    Question:
    Answer: "Must be another Pinko Kerry Fonda Gore, who else could it be?
    and don't forget how bad Clinton was." ...)))


    Does that just about cover it?
    Turk
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2005
  9. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yeah, 64% think spying is OK.

    You lefty fags are a laugh a minute with all your jokes, stop it your guys are cracking me up :singing:
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10626679/


    John Dean thinks its impeachable, but that he will not be impeached as the Congress is full of people who have no interest in oversight.

    This one on one is very revealing.
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,490
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -4

    My Jersey:

    Impeachment,
    Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Dean, those are the bas tards that are ripe for Impeachment.
  12. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Treason
    trea├é┬Ěson ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
    n.
    Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
    A betrayal of trust or confidence.




    Sedition
    se├é┬Ědi├é┬Ětion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-dshn)
    n.
    Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
    Insurrection; rebellion.

    Sure sounds like what those pinko commie dems are doing to me!
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 28, 2005
  13. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The MSNBC poll is an internet poll. Internet polls by their very nature lean heavily in the direction of what group of people have the stronger opinion on the matter. In this case its the leftists that want to make a strong voice of impeachment whereas those that don't want impeachment are far more likely not to vote at all, thus giving what amounts to an inaccurate poll. The same could be said of another MSNBC poll, conducted one week after the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke, whereas 73% of the respondents voted to have President Clinton impeached. In this case, the right wing was more inclined to vote than those on the left.

    See this article from MSNBC concerning internet polls.
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3704453/
    Who is Scott Rasmussen? He is one of the more accurate pollsters today. Correctly predicted all 50 states in the 2004 Presidential election. Nailed the electoral votes precisely. Off topic but of interest, he also was one of the founding partners of ESPN.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/State%20by%20state%20comparisons%202004.htm
  14. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Scott Rasmussen is a Republican pollster who twist and manipulate data to fit his Republicans cronies' agenda.


    .
  15. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Actually you, Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean fit that definition to perfection.
  16. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    LOL!!! Too funny
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Can I just ask a hypothetical question? Is it EVER OK to speak against your president during time of war? Could any president use this to silence critics? Not saying that this administration has crossed the line, but IS there a line anywhere in the sand?
  18. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Good question. Freedom is not for the timid or the weak. It is always necessary to criticise. War is no excuse. If it were, every president would just declare war to do whatever the hell he wants, kinda like the chimp is doing with his ambiguous and ill-defined war on terra.
  19. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    John Adams silenced his critics with the Alien and Sedition act but this is "frowned upon" to say the least.
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I don't mean literally silence critics by force-of-law. I just mean, say, had Clinton decided to bomb Canada in '93, and the "war" lasted til, oh, say 2000. Would that have put Clinton beyond reproach because we, as American Patriots, have a duty to stand behind our President in a time of war? Likewise, if the current administration started doing something very questionable, say outright assasignating anyone they suspected of being a terrorist, would that make it OK to speak out against the president?

    I'm just trying to get a handle on whether the benefit-of-doubt we give to a president in wartime is absolute?
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2005
  21. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    No, it is not. Read the Teddy Roosevelt quotes NEM posts.
    Me, I only wish Bush would assasinate terrorists. But that's my view.

    In WWII Roosevelt had Germans who landed in FL bent on sabotage tried and hanged in 2 weeks. We could pretty much clean out Gitmo in a coupla months with the right attitude.
  22. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    So do I.

    But there is just this one problem.

    There is no terrorist in Iraq.

    All the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    .
  23. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    You really believe that? You do know that AQ's Zarquari if alive is in Iraq? As well as many other acknowleged AQ folks. Maybe you don't know that.
  24. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Wait, I thought the problem was that we don't know who the terrorists are. Sure, most of them have been middle-eastern, but not all middle-eastern people are terrorists, so who do you kill?
  25. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    Who said it's easy? I'd start with anyone shooting at me.
  26. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I'm with you there - deadly force for self defense is a-ok.

    I think the disagreement people have is that we aren't disagreeing as much as we think. I'm a libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), and that puts me far enough left to classify me as a looney, out-of-touch liberal with a lot of folks here. But I favor going after the terrorists. Likewise, I don't think many conservatives, even ultra-conservatives favor executing or jailing people at random hoping some of them will be terrorists. So we all want to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, let's accept that. Now how do we get where we all want to be?
  27. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    AQ's Zarquari is a creation of George Bush.

    Before George Bush attacked Iraq, there was no terrorist.

    Just a tin pot dictator named Saddam.


    .
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2005
  28. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    I'm socially slightly liberal (no drug laws, etc) and fiscally conservative (Bush a big spender). If I knew the answers I'd be a god like the framers of the Republic.
  29. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I think a lot of regular people have more sensible answers than the current people in power (I mean politicians in general, not Republicans or Democrats) but nobody cares about getting around to solutions too quickly. It makes sense - survival of the fittest in politics means the ability to get re-elected. Some weird combination of charisma and deattachment goes a long way, and the system is so poisoned that nobody expects more from the people we put into office - and the perpetual life of greedy wealth supported by around third of every buck we each earn. And we, regular people - football fans, are left to attack each other with the Democrats' and Republicans' talking points? They're just giving us bread and circuses.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2005
  30. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,508
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    It's all about geting re-elected. Each party panders to its base and promises to steal wealth or power from one constituency to feed anothers' greed. Your preferences may vary. Mine do.

Share This Page