MSNBC Poll: Should President Bush be impeached?

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: nick1985

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

I love how liberals debate...

Did you read my post? Are you going to say that desegregation wasn't the 100% correct position? I'm not debating, I'm trying to tell you that "balanced" is not necessarily correct. FYI, I disagree with the standard liberal positions on several significant issues. For example, embryonic stem cell research, and leaving Iraq ASAP.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: nick1985

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.

While your argument makes sense, I would like to know what you really think. If a poll was created which all American's were aware of and had easy access to then what kind of results would you expect? I think it would still show that most Americans would prefer to see some justice in the form of impeachment. That's all that really matters here. Debating about how MSNBC caters to a particular audience is kind of a waste of time wouldn't you say?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
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.

Let me highlight and define the two terms you confuse.

Probable: likely to occur or prove true; having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

Possible: that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.

If we quantify these ideas, possible is a greater than zero chance; probable is a greater than 50% chance. Do we agree so far?

Now, as you have correctly stated, the letter of the law is probable cause. That means a greater than 50% chance. You have taken this and replaced it with a possibility, a greater than zero chance, when it comes to screening calls. But according to your very own definition, we need probable cause. Do you honestly believe that 50% or greater of all calls between the United States and foreign countries are "terrorist chatter?" If you are making so bold a claim, I think the onus falls on you to provide evidence to substantiate it. But I don't believe you'd be so foolish to make that claim. I believe you are confusing your terminology. When you reread the letter of the law in these terms, it is obvious that the US Government does not have a reasonable claim of probable cause in this matter.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

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

Thaks for a perfect example of the way tyranny starts. "The Jews" you speak of know that people like you are among the scariest people on the planet.

This poem is usually attributed to German pastor Martin Niemöller, who previously had been an early supporter of Hitler. By 1934 Niemöller had come to oppose the Nazis, and it was largely his high connections to influential and wealthy businessmen that saved him until 1937, after which he was imprisoned, eventually at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He survived to be a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. (description adapted from this wikpedia history of the poem)

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I don't know how old you are, but you have not the slightest clue how close the parallels are between the Bushwhackos and the monsters of Hitler's nazi dictatorship, including Karl Rove starring in the role of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, credited with implementing and exploiting the principle of "The Big Lie."

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

The Bushwhackos did not commit all of their crimes on on day. They have committed a succession of "high crimes and misdemeanors," one after another, day after day, in a continuous onslaught against the citizens of the United States of America and the world. Their crimes include:

• TREASON
  
  They have shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the Constitution, including the right to freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to legal counsel, the right to habaes corpus -- to have any charges against a citizen heard in open court, the right to freedom from false imprisonment and more.
  
• MURDER
  
  As of 6/8/2008, 4,094 American troops have died, and tens of thousands more have been wounded, scarred and disabled for life in their war of LIES. Every one of those deaths is a murder, and every one of those wounded constitutes a case of battery against an American citizen.
  
  
  
• WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
  
  The Bushwhackos have sanctioned and committed TORTURE and other crimes against humanity in violation of U.S. and international laws.
  
• WAR PROFITEERING
  
  They have given lucrative no-bid contracts to their wealthy friends, business associates and campaign contributors with no oversight, contractors like Halliburton and their subsidiaries who have committed multiple documented cases of gross abuse and fraud, and contractors like Blackwater, who have committed gross abuses, including murder against innocent Iraqi citizens while this adminstration has protected them and held them above any laws or recourse for their crimes.

Worst of all, they have committed these crimes in our name, and they have placed an indelible, bloody stain on the honor, the integrity and the crediblity of our once great nation in the eyes of our own citizens and the world.

When you excuse their crimes, ANY of their crimes, for the sake of expediency in "a search for terrorist activity" that cannot be documented or proven with any supportable facts, YOU are an apologist for their crimes. In so doing, YOU become an accessory after the fact to their treason, murder, torture and war crimes. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[PingSpike]

The best arguement against impeachment of Bush is that we have now waited so long we may as well not even bother. That and VP Dick Cheney.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The best arguement against impeachment of Bush is that we have now waited so long we may as well not even bother. That and VP Dick Cheney.

The best argument for impeaching Bush AND Cheney and holding them responsible for their crimes is that we have to demonstrate to ourselves and the world that we are a nation of laws, not of criminals, and that we are willing to uphold our Constitution and the laws of our nation to oppose and prosecute those who would violate them, instead of making excuses why we can't.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That strikes me as a mighty thin cop out. First GWB chooses an idiot advisers who leads him astray, everyone and their brother and law tells GWB his adviser is wrong, and GWB cheerfully continues to violate the law even after his idiot adviser is forced to resign.

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

Its just like asking some criminal, is it OK for me to rob the bank at gun point, and when the criminal says yes, and the person robs the bank at gun point, he can say the devil made me do it? Do you realize how long that would last in a court of law, they would still be laughing
after they sent him to jail.

Hitler enablers created the same cushy deal for themselves, but when they got to Neuremberg,
all their artificial defenses did not last five milliseconds.

Common sense does not equal legal sense

 

[Lemon law]

I agree with Harvey, but what is unsaid, is that the time may come when we need the world's help to bail our asses out of GWB&co inspired messes, and one of the down payments for that aid may be a world demand that we turn GWB&co over to the Hague for international war crimes.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The best arguement against impeachment of Bush is that we have now waited so long we may as well not even bother. That and VP Dick Cheney.

Good! If that's the best objection, let's get on with it, and let justice finally be served! :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nick1985

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?

The same MSNBC that first insisted to Phil Donahue that he have two pro-war guests on for every anti-war guest, and then cancelled his show, the top-rated show they had, because they didn't want a single anti-war show on their network? The same MSNBC that has given all kinds of airtime to discredited far-right commentators?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That strikes me as a mighty thin cop out. First GWB chooses an idiot advisers who leads him astray, everyone and their brother and law tells GWB his adviser is wrong, and GWB cheerfully continues to violate the law even after his idiot adviser is forced to resign.

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

Its just like asking some criminal, is it OK for me to rob the bank at gun point, and when the criminal says yes, and the person robs the bank at gun point, he can say the devil made me do it? Do you realize how long that would last in a court of law, they would still be laughing
after they sent him to jail.

Hitler enablers created the same cushy deal for themselves, but when they got to Neuremberg,
all their artificial defenses did not last five milliseconds.

Common sense does not equal legal sense

Where, sir, is your moral compass?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Where's the choice to repeatedly kick him in the nuts with steel tipped boots?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Where's the choice to repeatedly kick him in the nuts with steel tipped boots?

Cheney is his Dick, Rumsfeld was nuts; they worked as a team.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Where's the choice to repeatedly kick him in the nuts with steel tipped boots?

Somewhere far after the choice to try and convict them for their crimes and give them lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride.

< sarcasm >

Waterboarding isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right??? :roll:

< /sarcasm >

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Did he admit that he deliberately was breaking the law or was he advised by legal counsel (however how incompetent) that he was within the presidential authority.

Then after the fact, the legality was clarified?

What was the actual time line?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That strikes me as a mighty thin cop out. First GWB chooses an idiot advisers who leads him astray, everyone and their brother and law tells GWB his adviser is wrong.
-snip-

IMO, you badly distort the legal situation. In many of the discussions we've had here on these issues (e.g., GC applicability to terrorists prisoners) there are many differeing opinions by many many scholars. You make it sound as if GWB found the only one to support his position and went with it.

There is still no legal concensus on many of these things and there won't be until the SCOTUS steps in. And even in cases where they have, we had differing opinions from the districts/appeals courts and those were upheld/overturned in part by the SCOTUS. So, nobody got right, at least according to the SCOTUS.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
-snip-
However, I refuse to let ANY president to claim war powers or any privileges thereof without an actual declaration of war by congress. President Bush has had no such thing.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. See the Hamdi case for example. The SCOTUS says Congress DID declare war.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
[
IMO, you badly distort the legal situation. In many of the discussions we've had here on these issues (e.g., GC applicability to terrorists prisoners) there are many differeing opinions by many many scholars. You make it sound as if GWB found the only one to support his position and went with it.

That's pretty much what he did.

There is still no legal concensus on many of these things and there won't be until the SCOTUS steps in. And even in cases where they have, we had differing opinions from the districts/appeals courts and those were upheld/overturned in part by the SCOTUS. So, nobody got right, at least according to the SCOTUS.

Fern

And on the Supreme Court, there's a split between the four radicals on the right and the rest.

 

[tweaker2]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
So about 11 score and change years ago, the founders of our nation fought a bloody war, prevailed, and forged a new form of government based nearly entirely on the precept that the best form of government is not a government of men, but a government of laws.

They rather cleverly codified this in a self-protecting constitution, and managed to convince pretty much everyone here (and many abroad) of the wisdom of their vision.

Fast-forward to present day, when an entire political movement has managed to convince, scare, confuse, or otherwise befuddle enough people to essentially render that original vision of the founders moot; today, we are governed by a party that believes that it is right, meet, and salutary to break the law if the law gets in the way of its goals.

The "opposition" party seems about equally divided into two factions - those that agree in principle with the ruling party, and those that don't but are too afraid of backlash and/or invested in their current fiefdoms to make anything other than timid, not-even-rising-to-symbolic-level peeps against this travesty.

Essentially, the U.S. Government as envisioned by the founders and codified in the Constitution is for all intents and purposes is broken. It may in fact be defunct - but its reasonably familiar shape and intermittent spastic twitching seems to provide enough hope for enough folks so that it's not really worth it to actually investigate the matter.

Impeachment may be off the table; maybe this won't go anywhere, but I, and obviously millions of Americans, have had to sit by for years watching Bush and Co break the law.

I am more than happy to finally have the full list of their law breaking entered into the Congressional Record. It's about time!

QFT :thumbsup: a very big :thumbsup:

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nick1985

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?

The same MSNBC that first insisted to Phil Donahue that he have two pro-war guests on for every anti-war guest, and then cancelled his show, the top-rated show they had, because they didn't want a single anti-war show on their network? The same MSNBC that has given all kinds of airtime to discredited far-right commentators?

So you dont think MSNBC has a bias?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nick1985

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?

The same MSNBC that first insisted to Phil Donahue that he have two pro-war guests on for every anti-war guest, and then cancelled his show, the top-rated show they had, because they didn't want a single anti-war show on their network? The same MSNBC that has given all kinds of airtime to discredited far-right commentators?

So you dont think MSNBC has a bias?

Yes, a corporatist bias, and to a lesser extent, a right-wing bias, the former leading it to allow the profitable Keith Olbermann airtime now that the public opinion has shifted enough.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nick1985

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?

The same MSNBC that first insisted to Phil Donahue that he have two pro-war guests on for every anti-war guest, and then cancelled his show, the top-rated show they had, because they didn't want a single anti-war show on their network? The same MSNBC that has given all kinds of airtime to discredited far-right commentators?

So you dont think MSNBC has a bias?

Yes, a corporatist bias, and to a lesser extent, a right-wing bias.

Are you joking? Surely you cant be serious...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...l/w122630D01.DTL&tsp=1

Impeachment killed via House poll...

 

[BMW540I6speed]

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...

Your kidding yourself. Millions of Americans are in favor of impeachment. liberals & conservitives, Republicans & Democrats alike. In your furor to prove a narritive of "bias" of a news organization, reality seems to have passed you by.

Constitutionally, in order for its citizens to have faith in their government, impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney should take place, political considerations aside. Impeachment proceedings are meant to illustrate to the country that the system works, that the Executive branch, can not act unilaterally outside the tenets of our constitution. The founding fathers designed a system of checks and balances for just such a purpose.

Impeaching Bush would not be frivolously poltical, it would be well founded. In fact, this is exactly the situation for which the founders created impeachment in the first place: a president who considers himself above the law.

If nothing else, Kucinich has entered, in a concise, focused way, the entire prosecutable scope of the Bush administration's crimes into the Congressional Record where future historians will have the opportunity to hopefully learn from the kaleidoscopic range of mistakes, manipulations and misdeeds of what will probably prove to be one of the most discusting era's in US history.

It's completely understandable that people would think bringing Articles of Impeachment is silly - we've all been poisoned in varying degrees by a Toxic Consensus that if it's not likely to happen within the next 15 minutes, there's no point in doing it, that looking "Presidential" is more important than actually being Presidential.

Furthermore, impeachment is only investigation, not conviction. If Bush is innocent he has nothing to worry about.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

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...

Your kidding yourself.

I stand by my claim. If an unbiased polling group polled the nation, I would bet everything I own that the number favoring impeachment would not be 89%.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nick1985

I stand by my claim. If an unbiased polling group polled the nation, I would bet everything I own that the number favoring impeachment would not be 89%.

I agree with you the figure is lower. I disagree with you that it proves anything about MSNBC bias.