By Bush's Math - There is a Mandate for Impeachment

If he thought winning election by getting 50.7% of the popular vote was a mandate, than 52% of Americans siding for Impeachment should be a sure thing.

"A poll released last week by Zogby International showed 52 percent of American adults thought Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he wiretapped U.S. citizens without court approval, including 59 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. (The survey had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points.)"



Impeachment - We Have a Mandate

Yes, that'd be fuzzy math if ever I saw it.

That article is hysterically slanted. Impeachment based on public opinion polls.

As long as we're at it, opinion polls also suggest that a majority of Americans oppose abortion and gay rights. Where are you drawing the line?

From Zogby:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12561
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1060

You're right: should have said increasing numbers, not majority(albeit frighteningly close), when it comes to gay rights (marriage, benefits, et al.)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-07-28-poll-gays-issues.htm

Here's my thing, and then I'm through arguing the point with a huge, psycho-conservative dildo:
Bush and Co. and the Radical right want to enforce THEIR idea of morality on the public.
Groovy. So make plans for all those unwanted children who are going to come flying out and inflating the population.
You see, that's the grand theme about the Right's scheme to end freedom of choice: they thought removing sex education and preventative measures from teenagers would lower the sex rate and it hasn't; they think eliminating abortion as a choice will create people who use their moral judgment to realize sexual acts could create a baby and declien; they think if they keep skimming money off of programs to help unwed mothers no one will notice or care; they think if they keep restricting adoption laws that all these new unwed babies will still somehow be adopted (only by Christian families, mind you!).
F*cking idiots.

Was I doing well? Damn.
So I'll call you a dildo again, then.

The issue here is that Bush took a voting margin that was incredibly small as a 100% approval mandate while IGNORING polls. Polls which said "get the government the f*ck out of the Schiavo case."
Polls which continue to say, "a woman's right is to choose."
Polls which INCREASINGLY continue to say, "start offering homosexuals more legal rights."
But, God, Bush ignores a mother who lost her son when she's standing on his property, so heaven forbid he might pick up a paper and read.

no, you're just a dildo, that's all. I'm well-educated, thanks. 7 years, a BA and an advanced degree. How about you?
Or did you graduate from the online education segment of Bob Jones University?

http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3711

I'm still digging around for more recent polling as I know it's out there...but there's never been very strong support for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.
While gay marriage is slightly over according to most polls I've found, there's also equal polls in FAVOR of at least extending some form of civil union.

So, facts?
And I'll tell you why it's important to look at polls: we elect our leaders. They are honor-bound to attempt to appease their constituents. They're also (or should be) honor-bound to protect those who fall outside the boundaries of law. Our country has ever grown stronger and more sure of itself when the strong take a stance to uphold the rights of the weak in the eyes of the law.
Unless, of course, you want to tell me freeing people from slavery and allowing women to vote were both mistakes.

Bwysinger:
Has no one ever presented the other side of the coin to you? Do you not see you're being as one-sided and closedminded as the right wing wackos whom you detest? Of course, blindfolds go along with any extremist position, left, right, wrong...

Our elected officials are not, nor ever have been, honor-bound to appease their consitituents. What a bunch of baloney. They are honorbound to uphold the laws of the United States of America, not that they all do. If they were honorbound for their constituents, opinion polls would rule, and I've already proven the absurdity of that type of thinking.

And again, you're apparently assuming I'm a religious right winger. Wrong.

My degrees are all from universities with very liberal professors and very conservative student bodies. Maybe that's why I can consider both sides. You're not doing much for your alleged credentials.

"Our elected officials are not, nor ever have been, honor-bound to appease their consitituents. What a bunch of baloney. They are honorbound to uphold the laws of the United States of America, not that they all do. If they were honorbound for their constituents, opinion polls would rule, and I've already proven the absurdity of that type of thinking. "

You made me spit out my coffee and laugh out loud.

Uphold the law?

Both parties when they get too much power do whatever they can to twist, turn, distort and evade the law.

Bush has basically said that he is only obligated to uphold those laws he likes.

That is why it is NEVER a good thing to have one party control all three houses.

Good grief.

Updated On: 1/26/06 at 12:26 PM

Umm. That was kind of the point. Show me an honest politician and I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

You really should check out the Libertarian platform. It goes much better with your views (and mine) than either republican or democrat. Limited federal government, and yes, limited by the people. Just like the founders of this country supported.

Kelzama,
I realize I'm far more libertarian than Democrat, but at this point, I want to win a battle AGAINST an enemy rather than make a political stand with weight that will only be felt down the line.
For better or for worse, our country is stuck with a two-party system right now.

Just one more thing, bwysinger: I simply have to ask which grammatical error you think you've found? I'd be happy to give you at least a point! Either that, or a grammar lesson.

Close, but no cigar. Nice try though. From Dictionary.com:
"Usage Note: Prove has two past participles: proved and proven. Proved is the older form. Proven is a variant. The Middle English spellings of prove included preven, a form that died out in England but survived in Scotland, and the past participle proven, a form that probably rose by analogy with verbs like weave, woven and cleave, cloven. Proven was originally used in Scottish legal contexts, such as The jury ruled that the charges were not proven. In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles. However, when used as an adjective before a noun, proven is now the more common word: a proven talent."

wow, you're just in in feisty mood. Merriam Webster and Oxford both say "proven" in the past participle is acceptable usage too. Let's try this: Tomato.