53% of adult Americans surveyed support Bush impeachment
robbbinh...@hotmail.com
likely voters want Congress to eye impeachment, while 45 percent do
not.
Among all adults surveyed, the numbers were higher: 53 percent
supported impeachment, while 42 percent did not.
The poll, which has a +/- 2.9% margin of error, interviewed 1,200 U.S.
adults from Oct. 29 through Nov. 2.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Zogby_Americans_support_consideration_of_impeachment_1104.html
Zogby poll: Majority of likely voters support considing impeachment
over Iraq, 51-45 percent
John Byrne and Miriam Raftery
Impeachment support is greater among all adults than likely voters
A new poll of likely voters by Zogby International has found that a
majority of Americans support Congress considering the impeachment of
President Bush if he "did not tell the truth about his reasons for
going to war with Iraq," RAW STORY has learned.
The poll, to be released this afternoon, finds that 51 percent of
likely voters want Congress to eye impeachment, while 45 percent do
not.
It was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of
progressive groups seeking a Congressional investigation of the events
leading up to war in Iraq.
Among all adults surveyed, the numbers were higher: 53 percent
supported impeachment, while 42 percent did not.
The poll, which has a +/- 2.9% margin of error, interviewed 1,200 U.S.
adults from Oct. 29 through Nov. 2.
Not surprisingly, Democrats supported the consideration of impeachment
by a broad margin (76 percent) while Republicans opposed (66 percent).
However, 29 percent of Republicans told Zogby pollsters that they
supported Congress examining impeachment over Iraq.
"These results are stunning," AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob
Fertik said in a statement.
"A clear majority of Americans now supports President Bush's
impeachment if he lied about the war. This should send shock waves
through the White House - and a wake-up call to Democrats and
Republicans in Congress, who have sole power under the Constitution to
impeach President Bush."
Whites were more likely to oppose impeachment proceedings, while
Hispanics and African Americans supported them.
Asians who took the poll were more likely to oppose impeachment, though
only 21 answered questions about their views.
Also notable:
46 percent of those who considered themselves "born again" said they
would support Congress considering impeachment.
The House of Representatives has the sole authority to impeach a
president.
Democrats, however, have not touched the issue, and they do not
constitute a majority in the chamber.
Zogby last polled likely voters on impeachment in June.
At that time, 42 percent supported considering impeachment, while 50
percent opposed.
Another poll of American adults conducted in early October by Ipsos,
the agency used by the Associated Press, found that 50 percent
supported Congress examining the issue, while 42 percent opposed.
__________________________________________________________
Harry
(see all of Harry Hope's excellent posts as they break, put this link
in your browser, use it, this is a search on google groups, on the
author Harry Hope sorted by date... nothing fancy):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=-nIhFBQAAACtBOUGAhN9cSve8yYdFJBuOPANdqfI6prRsqjc7uCt1A&
bart
Never happen.
You just can't Impeach somebody for being the Stupidest President in
US History.
Sanders Kaufman
news:3t2pv2F...@individual.net...
> You just can't Impeach somebody for being the Stupidest President in
> US History.
Apparently - you can:
> The Espionage Act criminalizes, among other things, the
> willful - or grossly negligent -- communication of national-
> defense related information that "the possessor has reason
Bush's best defense so far has been his low intellect, lack of curiosity,
and wilfull ignorance.
--
We Americans can never be safe from Muslim terrorists until we neutralize
our own Militant Christian insurgency.
theb...@mailinator.com
one not to wonder by what mechanism a poll bought and paid for by "a
coalition of progressive groups" might have come up with the rather
curious data point that the same voters who gave bush a majority in the
last election now want him impeached?
It's pure propaganda. Engineering the desired result would not have
been difficult at all.
Moreover, the support for impeachment is conditional upon Bush having
lied about the war: The poll does not appear to show what percentage
actually beleive that to be the case. A lack of curiosity and wilful
ignorance however, might cause one to overlook that as well.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131236170.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> lack of curiosity? would that be the same lack of curiosity that leads
> one not to wonder by what mechanism a poll bought and paid for by "a
> coalition of progressive groups" might have come up with the rather
Another anonymous Bush loyalist, expressing his lack of faith in the
Democratic process.
Nothing new here!
--
Only children and predators have need for internet anonymity.
Which one are you?
theb...@mailinator.com
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> <theb...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:1131236170.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > lack of curiosity? would that be the same lack of curiosity that leads
> > one not to wonder by what mechanism a poll bought and paid for by "a
> > coalition of progressive groups" might have come up with the rather
>
> Another anonymous Bush loyalist, expressing his lack of faith in the
> Democratic process.
> Nothing new here!
I have plenty of faith in the poll that happens on election day. Other
polls are irrelevant and frequently engineered to garner a specific
result. Or do you have faith in your (ahem) "democratic process" when
it's the GOP buying an opinion poll?
Suuuuuuure.
theb...@mailinator.com
> Which one are you?
Neither. I don't need it, I just want it. It's called freedom you
silly fuck.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131442542....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But just a *little* freedom.
If you really felt free, you wouldn't have to hide.
That's why I always say, it's better to judge you fascists by your actions,
than by your words.
What is it that you cower in fear from?
Why are you so afraid (or ashamed) to promote your agenda honestly and
openly?
--
It's no wonder you post anonymously.
You're a coward and you would never say this crap under your own name.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131442467.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> Another anonymous Bush loyalist, expressing his lack of faith in the
>> Democratic process.
>> Nothing new here!
>
> I have plenty of faith in the poll that happens on election day. Other
So you only like a *little* democracy - once every few years or so.
Apparently- we're on an off day.
theb...@mailinator.com
> Apparently- we're on an off day.
Still wondering how much faith you have in "democracy" when it's dubya
buying an opinion poll...
theb...@mailinator.com
> If you really felt free, you wouldn't have to hide.
I'm free to post anonymously or not, as I choose.
> That's why I always say, it's better to judge you fascists by your actions,
> than by your words.
Yeah, it's much easier to go the ad-hominem route than to actually
debate an argument.
> Why are you so afraid (or ashamed) to promote your agenda honestly and
> openly?
I might ask you the same question. What is so shameful about your
ideology that you cannot defend it without assaulting the character of
those who challenge it?
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131483384....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What about buying polls do you see as being "democracy"?
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131483645....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Why are you so afraid (or ashamed) to promote your agenda honestly and
>> openly?
>
> I might ask you the same question. What is so shameful about your
> ideology that you cannot defend it without assaulting the character of
> those who challenge it?
My agenda is little more than to promote honesty and openness.
Take care of those two issues, and the rest will work themselves out.
As long as people like you are afraid or ashamed to stand behind what you
say - what you say carries no weight.
zxcvbob
> The poll, to be released this afternoon, finds that 51 percent of
> likely voters want Congress to eye impeachment, while 45 percent do
> not.
>
> It was commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition of
> progressive groups seeking a Congressional investigation of the events
> leading up to war in Iraq.
>
> Among all adults surveyed, the numbers were higher: 53 percent
> supported impeachment, while 42 percent did not.
>
> The poll, which has a +/- 2.9% margin of error, interviewed 1,200 U.S.
> adults from Oct. 29 through Nov. 2.
>
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about impeachment, but I do
wonder how those 1200 people were selected by the pollsters, and how
exactly the poll questions were worded.
I suspect the AfterDowningStreet.org (a coalition of progressive groups
seeking a Congressional investigation) had a particular outcome in mind
before they commissioned the survey.
Best regards,
Bob
theb...@mailinator.com
Exactly my point.
theb...@mailinator.com
>>> openly?
>> I might ask you the same question. What is so shameful about your
>> ideology that you cannot defend it without assaulting the character of
>> those who challenge it?
> My agenda is little more than to promote honesty and openness.
> Take care of those two issues, and the rest will work themselves out.
> As long as people like you are afraid or ashamed to stand behind what you
> say - what you say carries no weight.
Ad hominem debating techniques are a logical fallacy. My argument
stands on its merits regardless of my identity. Of course, since you
cannot refute my argument, I can understand why you would try to excuse
resorting to fallacious arguments.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131518855....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> > Still wondering how much faith you have in "democracy" when it's dubya
>> > buying an opinion poll...
>>
>> What about buying polls do you see as being "democracy"?
>
> Exactly my point.
I see your point.
You anonymously claim that because some polls are not right, you should
dismiss all polls.
But then you anonymously say polls that favor militant right wing whack-jobs
should be believed.
Clearly- your idea of democracy is anything but.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131519113.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ad hominem debating techniques are a logical fallacy. My argument
> stands on its merits regardless of my identity. Of course, since you
> cannot refute my argument, I can understand why you would try to excuse
> resorting to fallacious arguments.
Your argument was that I should take you at your word.
I choose to dismiss your anonymous right-wing whack-job rants.
I have found that people who are too cowardly to stand up for what they
believe in should not be taken at their anonymous word.
Especially when what they rant about is so... wacky
That's a faith-based path that only a fool would follow.
--
"The wackos get their information
through the Christian right, Christian radio,
mail, the internet and telephone trees.
Simply put, we want to bring out the
wackos to vote against something and
make sure the rest of the public lets the
whole thing slip past them."
- Michael Scanlon (Lobbyist for Bush)
theb...@mailinator.com
> I choose to dismiss your anonymous right-wing whack-job rants.
There there, I'm sure, if you search long enough, you'll find some
reason why this makes sense.
> I have found that people who are too cowardly to stand up for what they
> believe in should not be taken at their anonymous word.
> Especially when what they rant about is so... wacky
Since you are incapable of so much as addressing my argument except by
innuendo and personal slander, you're hardly in a position to assert
that my argument is "wacky". Your inability to defend your position
logically suggests rather that it is your position which lacks
credibility. In fact, the only reason you have shown that my arguments
are "wacky" is your own personal word.
>That's a faith-based path that only a fool would follow
Quite.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1131523132....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Since you are incapable of so much as addressing my argument except by
> innuendo and personal slander, you're hardly in a position to assert
> that my argument is "wacky". Your inability to defend your position
> logically suggests rather that it is your position which lacks
> credibility. In fact, the only reason you have shown that my arguments
> are "wacky" is your own personal word.
What makes you think I can't defend my position?
Heck, the subject of this thread is how 53% of Americans *share* my
position.
Bill Walker
<theb...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1131523132....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<chuckle> If you got the guts to post it, then have the balls to sign your
name to it..
theb...@mailinator.com
The fact that you choose not to.
> Heck, the subject of this thread is how 53% of Americans *share*
Appeal to popularity, another logical fallacy.
Also, Appeal to Authority (You sign your name to your opinion therefore
the opinion is trustworthy)
Your every argument is fallacious. You're a twit.
Bored now. bye.