Page 1 of 1
MSNBC online poll: 87% think Bush should be impeached.
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:59 am
by crazyhorse1
The great leader is apparently under appreciated by his subjects. Thank God the self-sacrificing rich and their Republican representatives in Congress don't care what typical Americans think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
I propose that polls on subjects like this one, in future, be conducted be conducted by Ken Blackwell in conjunction with Tom Delay and Diebold voting machines.
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:11 am
by Punu
jeez... 87%!?! I had to vote just to believe it
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:03 pm
by 1niksder
Punu wrote:jeez... 87%!?! I had to vote just to believe it
FYI:MSNBC’s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users.
Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:00 pm
by Irn-Bru
This is funny. So are the CNN polls that they run on the website.
About as reliable as THN polls will be in predicting the Skins success in any given year. . .some years (like this one!) they'll be right, but only because even broken clocks are right twice a day.
Wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached, though.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:08 am
by ii7-V7
87% of MSN viewer are Democrats! Thats all this proves.
Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:52 am
by Punu
ohhh... makes sense
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:06 am
by TincoSkin
chaddukes wrote:87% of MSN viewer are Democrats! Thats all this proves.
im a republican and i think he should be impeached
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:08 am
by Redskins Rule
TincoSkin wrote:chaddukes wrote:87% of MSN viewer are Democrats! Thats all this proves.
im a republican and i think he should be impeached
Irn-Bru wrote:Wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached, though.
Its great to see that some republicans see the light!
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:21 am
by Irn-Bru
Its great to see that some republicans see the light!
I'm not a republican, but thanks anyway. . .
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:12 pm
by nuskins
TincoSkin wrote:chaddukes wrote:87% of MSN viewer are Democrats! Thats all this proves.
Im a republican and i think he should be impeached
I'm with you on that. Although I am a Republican I have never voted for George Jr. , anyone with a free thinking mind and any inclination of perception could see what an idiot he is.
Guess that proves how many idiots there are in this country.
Today's Republicans are not our forefather's Republicans.
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:20 pm
by SkinsJock
..Wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached, though.
I was thinking they had a great chance with Clinton, but they couldn't quite get it done, shame that.
I doubt that they will go through with it this time either.
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:29 pm
by Irn-Bru
nuskins wrote:Today's Republicans are not our forefather's Republicans.
Especially since Republicans didn't exist until the mid-19th century.
Although, Bush is not that different than Lincoln, in my opinion. So maybe there is something there in terms of heritage. . .
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:42 pm
by TincoSkin
Irn-Bru wrote:nuskins wrote:Today's Republicans are not our forefather's Republicans.
Especially since Republicans didn't exist until the mid-19th century.
Although, Bush is not that different than Lincoln, in my opinion. So maybe there is something there in terms of heritage. . .
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA are you crazy??
Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:20 pm
by Irn-Bru
TincoSkin wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA are you crazy??
I don't think so (others beg to differ). . . .why do you ask?
I'm not getting the implied question. (Is it: How could you possibly think that Bush is like Lincoln, since the two have nothing in common?!)
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:15 pm
by nuskins
Irn-Bru wrote:nuskins wrote:Today's Republicans are not our forefather's Republicans.
Especially since Republicans didn't exist until the mid-19th century.
Although, Bush is not that different than Lincoln, in my opinion. So maybe there is something there in terms of heritage. . .
LOL...typical wordplay response. Honestly you need only go back 30 years to see how much different the philosphy of today's Republicans has shifted from the principles the party was founded on(1854). I don't know how many generations your family may have had since 1854 but mine has had quite a few, enough to qualify my "forefather" statement.
I'll leave you with a quote from many of today's republicans favorite former member, Ronald Reagan.
"In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
PS-Please explain if you will your thoughts on similarities that George Jr. and Abraham Lincoln share, I am most curious.
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:25 pm
by Countertrey
nuskins...
Google "Abraham Lincoln"&"Civil War" & "Civil Liberties"
Bush is almost angelic in comparison... he has never jailed a judge without charge.... Lincoln completely suspended Habeas Corpus, on executive authority alone...
Prepare to be surprised.
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:01 pm
by Irn-Bru
nuskins wrote:LOL...typical wordplay response. Honestly you need only go back 30 years to see how much different the philosphy of today's Republicans has shifted from the principles the party was founded on(1854). I don't know how many generations your family may have had since 1854 but mine has had quite a few, enough to qualify my "forefather" statement.
Fair enough. You've gotta give me some space here, though, as people very often appeal to the "forefathers" as an authority, and have the framer's of the constitution in mind. I understand what you mean there.
I'll leave you with a quote from many of today's republicans favorite former member, Ronald Reagan.
"In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
If only there was a single politician (aside from Ron Paul, rep. TX) who actually believed that.
PS-Please explain if you will your thoughts on similarities that George Jr. and Abraham Lincoln share, I am most curious.
Bush supports protectionist economic actions (like tariffs, for instance) and agressive wars, for one thing, not to mention the civil liberty issues that he and Lincoln seem to have in common (as Countertrey has pointed out). Under Lincoln, the United States made money a federal concern, nationalized it, and abandoned a commodity-backed dollar in order to finance a war that couldn't possibly have been payed for at the time.
I don't feel like I could write a book on the topic or anything, but those were some of the things that I had in mind. Mainly I was thinking about the hawkish disposition, the trade policies, civil liberties, and monetary policies.