MSNBC Poll: Should President Bush be impeached?

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nick1985
MSNBC...

and?

Oh nothing, just that MSNBC is crazy left biased so their site might attract more lefties that would vote yes. If this poll were on Fox, which tends to be more conservative, the results would probably be different. So I take this poll with a grain of salt.

I'd also say that MSNBC isn't that left leaning

lol

The fact is Bush has broken laws and should be impeached. 100% of Americans SHOULD agree, regardless of party. Are you disputing that??

Truth has a liberal bias. Tell me, if there was a poll on MSNBC in 1960 asking whether segregation should end, and it was 89% agreeing, what would you say? Would you criticize MSNBC for attracting liberals? What about the fact that the liberal position is 100% correct?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: nick1985
So you dont think MSNBC is biased?

Lol at your incredibly loony perspective.

If MSNBC is that biased, please regale us with 10 of the most recent links proving it.

That should be a slam dunk for you.

Put up or shut up.

2 words, Kieth Olbermann

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I voted no. I don't believe warrantless wiretapping constitutes a "high" crime. I'd have forgiven Clinton of the same act under the same circumstances. Tenshodo is right. The result of terrorist attacks extends beyond the immediate casualties. A secondary casualty is the loss of some rights which follows.

If wiretapping is the best accusation you have against Bush, I think your foundation is rickety.

You guys scare the shit out of me. You honestly think that because terrorists attacked us that one of the cornerstones of the bill of rights no longer applies and that the president can violate lawfully enacted statutes in secret without consequence. Creepy.

I honestly cannot think of a more powerful accusation that could be leveled against a president. He committed a felony in order to infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens, did so in secret, and publicly lied to the country when he stated he was doing otherwise.

I cannot understand how anyone who understands the basis for the constitution or the bill of rights could be okay with this.

Yes, I honestly think that. A lawfully enacted statute that protects privacy is reasonably breached if there's a search for terrorist activity. Now, I would be disgusted if they were rounding up dissenting citizens en masse like a gestapo. But until that happens, I don't view attempting to listen in on suspected terrorists' conversations as an impeachable offense.

You can't think of a more powerful accusation than he invaded people's privacy? I can, and the Jews can too.

Oh jesus (har) here come the Nazis again. I was referring to actions by a US president. Shockingly enough rounding up, killing, and burning 6 million odd people is worse. Thanks.

Your response shows that you do not understand the Constitution. A reasonable search is not one based on what one is looking for, but the probability that the person being searched has 'it'. So no, you are simply wrong about that.

Maybe if I showed you the insanely awful effects of following this line of reasoning you would better see why it is illegal. The primary purpose of warrants is to restrain the power of the police. This is a check of power between branches and is the basis for our entire system of government. What the president has done is take law enforcement entirely out of the supervisory powers of the courts and placed them in his hands alone. A secret program like this answers to no one. Sure you want terrorists to be wiretapped, but who even knows who is being wiretapped? The only people who do are the people doing the spying. Do you think if they violate people's rights they're going to tell anyone?

I simply cannot believe you support unlimited unaccountable spying on American citizens by the government without recourse. It is against everything our country was founded upon, it's a violation of the President's oath of office, the law, and the Constitution. Shame on you for defending it.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nick1985
Oh nothing, just that MSNBC is crazy left biased so their site might attract more lefties that would vote yes. If this poll were on Fox, which tends to be more conservative, the results would probably be different. So I take this poll with a grain of salt.

Ignoring your incredibly biased assessment of MSNBC, all online polls should be taken with a grain of salt. They aren't even close to a representative scientific sampling.

That said, they're a lot of fun and they often offer insight into how popular passions are running on any given day.

So you dont think MSNBC is biased?

Who cares, whats your point?. Do you deny millions of Americans support impeachment?

Fox probably would not even run a poll. Their stenographers that call themselves "journalists" don't even find these articles "newsworthy".

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
What about the fact that the liberal position is 100% correct?

I love how liberals debate...

 

[BassBomb]

Impeachment now is pretty useless but I vote yes. I know it won't happen though.

He should have been taken out of office in 2003

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nick1985
Oh nothing, just that MSNBC is crazy left biased so their site might attract more lefties that would vote yes. If this poll were on Fox, which tends to be more conservative, the results would probably be different. So I take this poll with a grain of salt.

Ignoring your incredibly biased assessment of MSNBC, all online polls should be taken with a grain of salt. They aren't even close to a representative scientific sampling.

That said, they're a lot of fun and they often offer insight into how popular passions are running on any given day.

So you dont think MSNBC is biased?

Who cares, whats your point?.

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

The problem is more with the structure of online polls then the website. You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it. Does this mean that CNN is conservatively biased because they have Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs?

The problem with this poll is the same thing with all online polls, ie. it's not a random sample and it's voluntary response. If you support Bush being impeached you are way more likely to answer the poll then if you don't, because honestly you care more. So scream 'librul media bias!' all you want, but it's not very convincing.

In actual polling they have found a majority of Americans have been in favor of impeaching Bush over the warrantless wiretapping program, but it wasn't a huge majority if I remember right.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it.

No, they have MANY. Have you noticed that a lot of the guests for mathews and olberman are from the Huffington Post? I mean come on now...who do they think they are fooling? Not to mention Rachel Maddow is on almost every single day on MSNBC, and subs for olberman. She is a hard left lib who has her own radio show on bankrupt air america. Just look around at who is on the network, theres a bit more than 1 commentator.

 

[Atreus21]

Oh jesus (har) here come the Nazis again. I was referring to actions by a US president. Shockingly enough rounding up, killing, and burning 6 million odd people is worse. Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm used to seeing liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, and yet you stand apart from them. It's a relief to see some common sense.

Your response shows that you do not understand the Constitution. A reasonable search is not one based on what one is looking for, but the probability that the person being searched has 'it'. So no, you are simply wrong about that.

A reasonable search is based upon probable cause. There's a possibility that foreign calls to the United States are terrorist chatter, and that intercepting them might save lives, and damage the enemy. That seems to me to be reasonable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it.

No, they have MANY. Have you noticed that a lot of the guests for mathews and olberman are from the Huffington Post? I mean come on now...who do they think they are fooling? Not to mention Rachel Maddow is on almost every single day on MSNBC, and subs for olberman. She is a hard left lib who has her own radio show on bankrupt air america. Just look around at who is on the network, theres a bit more than 1 commentator.

By commentator I meant Olbermann. I guess it would have been better to say they have a liberal show. Of course they have liberal commentators... so does every network. They also have a metric butt ton of conservative commentators. Hell even FOX has one or two liberals. (well, sorta.)

Why would anyone be surprised that a liberal opinion show would have liberal guests on it? SHOCKING REVELATIONS.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Oh jesus (har) here come the Nazis again. I was referring to actions by a US president. Shockingly enough rounding up, killing, and burning 6 million odd people is worse. Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm used to seeing liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, and yet you stand apart from them. It's a relief to see some common sense.

Your response shows that you do not understand the Constitution. A reasonable search is not one based on what one is looking for, but the probability that the person being searched has 'it'. So no, you are simply wrong about that.

A reasonable search is based upon probably cause. There are times when warrantless searches are permissable. Terrorism is one such example.

Do you know what 'probable cause' is? I'll give you a hint, I already told you in my previous post and 'terrorism' doesn't cut it. It is the 'reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime'. In order to 'search' someone's phone for terrorism related information, you need to show a reasonable cause for thinking you will get that information from their phone. If you read the 4th amendment, that's what it's all about. When you remove the warrants you remove the requirement for probable cause, and right about then is where you start egregiously violating the Constitution.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it.

No, they have MANY. Have you noticed that a lot of the guests for mathews and olberman are from the Huffington Post? I mean come on now...who do they think they are fooling? Not to mention Rachel Maddow is on almost every single day on MSNBC, and subs for olberman. She is a hard left lib who has her own radio show on bankrupt air america. Just look around at who is on the network, theres a bit more than 1 commentator.

So?

Those whom are on Fox News often work for other conservative organizations.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Oh jesus (har) here come the Nazis again. I was referring to actions by a US president. Shockingly enough rounding up, killing, and burning 6 million odd people is worse. Thanks.

You're welcome. I'm used to seeing liberals comparing Bush to Hitler, and yet you stand apart from them. It's a relief to see some common sense.

Your response shows that you do not understand the Constitution. A reasonable search is not one based on what one is looking for, but the probability that the person being searched has 'it'. So no, you are simply wrong about that.

A reasonable search is based upon probable cause. There's a possibility that foreign calls to the United States are terrorist chatter, and that intercepting them might save lives, and damage the enemy. That seems to me to be reasonable.

I see you edited your post some. Unfortunately from a legal sense it is not. The requirement is not 'could anyone be talking to a terrorist', it is 'is THIS person we're searching likely to be talking to a terrorist'. This is the same thing that keeps the police from rifling through your wife or girlfriend's underwear drawer because someone in your town uses drugs.

I don't know how many times I need to say this, this is one of the founding principles of our republic. When you say this is okay, you are advocating the overthrow of the Bill of Rights.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it.

No, they have MANY. Have you noticed that a lot of the guests for mathews and olberman are from the Huffington Post? I mean come on now...who do they think they are fooling? Not to mention Rachel Maddow is on almost every single day on MSNBC, and subs for olberman. She is a hard left lib who has her own radio show on bankrupt air america. Just look around at who is on the network, theres a bit more than 1 commentator.

Why would anyone be surprised that a liberal opinion show would have liberal guests on it? SHOCKING REVELATIONS.

Hardball, and the Dan Abrams show (along with olberman) routinely have guests from the Huffington post. So its more than just olbermans show...Im not saying theres anything wrong with having liberal guests, but do they not have anything more credible than the huffington post? I mean come on, thats like the bottom of the barrel in terms of reporting.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

My point was that a biased news organization like MSNBC would attract people that share their views, which in this case would be the impeachment of Bush. So one cannot conclude from an MSNBC poll that the results are that of the nation.

I would be willing to bet everything I own that if Rasmussen or Zogby did this poll, it would not be 89% in favor, but a lesser figure. But since I cannot prove this, its just speculation.

You are attempting to call MSNBC left biased because they have a liberal commentator on it.

No, they have MANY. Have you noticed that a lot of the guests for mathews and olberman are from the Huffington Post? I mean come on now...who do they think they are fooling? Not to mention Rachel Maddow is on almost every single day on MSNBC, and subs for olberman. She is a hard left lib who has her own radio show on bankrupt air america. Just look around at who is on the network, theres a bit more than 1 commentator.

So?

Those whom are on Fox News often work for other conservative organizations.

And you are missing the point entirely. Nobody is debating the fact that Fox has a conservative slant. What Im arguing is that MSNBC has a liberal slant and therefor polls run off their site most likely do not represent America as a whole.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: nick1985
So you dont think MSNBC is biased?

Lol at your incredibly loony perspective.

If MSNBC is that biased, please regale us with 10 of the most recent links proving it.

That should be a slam dunk for you.

Put up or shut up.

2 words, Kieth Olbermann

That's IT? ONE liberal commentator?

You are dismissed, 404, substance and logic not found. Take your weak sauce for a walk, troll.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: nick1985
So you dont think MSNBC is biased?

Lol at your incredibly loony perspective.

If MSNBC is that biased, please regale us with 10 of the most recent links proving it.

That should be a slam dunk for you.

Put up or shut up.

2 words, Kieth Olbermann

That's IT? ONE liberal commentator?

You are dismissed, 404, substance and logic not found. Take your weak sauce for a walk, troll.

Chris Mathews, Dan Abrams, 95% of their guests....Are you honestly saying MSNBC doesnt have a liberal slant? You asking me to prove that MSNBC favors a liberal point of view is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue. Its pretty clear, does it really need to be broken down?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Hardball, and the Dan Abrams show (along with olberman) routinely have guests from the Huffington post. So its more than just olbermans show...Im not saying theres anything wrong with having liberal guests, but do they not have anything more credible than the huffington post? I mean come on, thats like the bottom of the barrel in terms of reporting.

Except that the Huffington Post is considered one of the most prominent and respected blogs in the world. A quick scan shows people such as John Conyers, John Zogby (who's polls you seem fine with linking), Christopher Hitchens, Walter Cronkite, etc. have all been contributors there. If that's the bottom of the barrel, then I need to find this barrel.

MSNBC has certainly gone to the left some after the success of Olbermann's show. It is nowhere approaching the degree of leftism that you are trying to tar it with though. Nowhere in the same ballpark.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

Hardball, and the Dan Abrams show (along with olberman) routinely have guests from the Huffington post. So its more than just olbermans show...Im not saying theres anything wrong with having liberal guests, but do they not have anything more credible than the huffington post? I mean come on, thats like the bottom of the barrel in terms of reporting.

MSNBC has certainly gone to the left some after the success of Olbermann's show.

Thats basically all I am saying. They have a leftist slant (not saying theres anything wrong with that), so polls run directly off their website most likely arnt representative of the nation as a whole. Thats all im trying to say...

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Hate to tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That excuse usually worked for the Clintons.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Thats basically all I am saying. They have a leftist slant (not saying theres anything wrong with that), so polls run directly off their website most likely arnt representative of the nation as a whole. Thats all im trying to say...

My original point was more that the polls probably suffer from voluntary response bias more then the location of the website. There we go!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nick1985

Hardball, and the Dan Abrams show (along with olberman) routinely have guests from the Huffington post. So its more than just olbermans show...Im not saying theres anything wrong with having liberal guests, but do they not have anything more credible than the huffington post? I mean come on, thats like the bottom of the barrel in terms of reporting.

MSNBC has certainly gone to the left some after the success of Olbermann's show.

Thats basically all I am saying. They have a leftist slant (not saying theres anything wrong with that), so polls run directly off their website most likely arnt representative of the nation as a whole. Thats all im trying to say...

the better question is do you support impeaching Bush or not?

 

[Lemon law]

Atreus21 shows he absolutely does not understand the difference between probable cause and unreasonable search and seizure with his-----A reasonable search is based upon probable cause. There's a possibility that foreign calls to the United States are terrorist chatter, and that intercepting them might save lives, and damage the enemy. That seems to me to be reasonable.

The point is the 99.9999999% of overseas calls are routine and non terrorists related. Yet Atreaus21 asserts a right to examine ALL to sift out the very few. Which is the precise definition of unreasonable search and seizure and no bill of rights at all.

And probable cause is that some other alarm is sounded before the fact to indicates something is odd about that given call so it should be monitored.

 

[LTC8K6]

Clear your cookie.

Vote early and often!

Not much of a poll if it can be stuffed, is it?