It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zogby Poll:Americans Support the impeachment of Bush for Wiretapping

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   


hZogby

10/29-11/2 Ipsos
10/8-9 Zogby (LV)
6/27-29 Net Change
Jun-Nov
Support Impeachment 53%
50%
42%
+11%

Oppose Impeachment 42%
44%
50%
-8%

Impeachment Margin +11%
+6%
-8%
+19%



The link breaks it down according to political affiliation, etc.

So,
, brace yourselves. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 14/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
They don't even know all the facts of the case, it’s like saying I don't like this book without even having read it.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Sure they do. If we dont know all the facts whose fault is it?

I'll tell you what we do know. We know this is just the tip of the iceburg, read the telecommunications reports of how the government makes demands on all telephone companies and they cant cope with it.

It must take a lot of manpower to go thru emails, Instant messaging systems, phone calls, you name it. Why, there is an unseen army out there doing all the dirty paranoid work. Its really not their fault. They have orders and are making a living. Talk about a small conservative government. LOL...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Umm... all of what you just posted is assumption and opinion except for one thing, and even that was twisted out of proportion. Let me save you the trouble of waiting, Bush will not get impeached. Good day to you



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... all of what you just posted is assumption and opinion except for one thing, and even that was twisted out of proportion. Let me save you the trouble of waiting, Bush will not get impeached. Good day to you
Well, wanting and getting are two different things. I agree, he will NOT be impeached.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Because of big media's firewall (for this administration) in this country, it would literally take Bush being caught on tape butchering children to be impeached.

It's insane.

BushCo. once again broke the law, and IS breaking the law. When are the American people and its so-called representatives going to wake up and face reality? Its insane.


Or when is the media going to pull its collective head out of its X and do the right thing (by actually covering it right) and doing its job?

I ain't holding my breath. This is one reason I am seriously considering getting out of the mainstream media. If Knight Ridder does sell, that will be it for me.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Every day I see the biggies in big media scratching their collective heads over why readership is tanking. It's the theater of the absurd.

They act like the internet barely exists. They are trapped in an institutional fog of their own making. And they will sink with that ship. Readers are bailing from papers b/c they don't say anything. Readers are a helluva lot sharper than those pin heads dare to realize. They are moving in droves to get their news online, where the truth actually exists. And where the establishment has no power over controlling content. I don't know how many times I have heard veteran journalists lament this; and how their children - raised in big media - DESPISE newspapers. They tell their parents that the newspaper industry should either rehab itself and get with the program, or go rot in hell.

Amen to that. And that's sad, coming from folks within Knight Ridder. KR is the only mainstream US news organization that actually does investigative journalism these days. That is exactly why, I believe, the powers that be are demanding it be sold. If you can't control it, buy it.


KR has been very bad for BushCo. Especially, digging into the corruption and crimes in Iraq by our military and its allies.

The mainstream media could definitely contribute to impeachment, if only their interests laid with the American people rather than its masters in Washington.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
This is exactly what I am talking about.. the mainstream doesn't get it; and they don't want to. Whatever would they do without all their access to those in high places?






Impeachment Calls Grow Louder
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive

Thursday 12 January 2006



I'm telling you, my friends, there's something going on at the grassroots that the mainstream media isn't getting.

And that's this urgent desire by millions of Americans to defenestrate Bush from power and reclaim our democracy.
www.truthout.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Yes...we can only pray it happens...if it did it would be the biggest case of "POETIC JUSTICE" the world as ever known...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
People don't you heard the news, Mr. Bush is giving himself executives power over the congress to do whatever he deemed fit to keep the nation safe and Americans from hurting themselves


We need to be tag, scrutinized, violated (for our own good) conversations heard and control.

We are nothing but littler children and Mr. Bush is our Father.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Bush cant get impeached. He has executive powers that ''superside liberties'' How bout that. But its for our own good, of course. They are monitoring cell phones; monitoring emails;, passing laws that gut the constitution and take away our rights; they pass laws that create huge tax cuts for the rich who dont need it; they do a louzy job responding to Katrina and Rita and all of that so they can claim they need more funding; they want to take away our guns; and they want to silence all those who oppose their plans.......

But its because they love us, and want to take care of us. Its not because they want power and control, dont worry



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

they want to take away our guns;


I did not respond to the rest of your post because its a matter of opinion, and that's fine your entitled to have one. However the highlighted statement above is not matter of opinion it’s just a blatant lie.

Weapons Ban Expires


[edit on 14-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The expiration of the 10-year-old ban on 19 types of assault weapons

Assault weapons and guns that citizens keep for safety at home is two difference things.

I am against assault weapons, because it will bring military type of weapons into the hands of undesirables in society.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Assault weapons and guns that citizens keep for safety at home is two difference things.


Oh, there is? So is there a ban against hand guns? Don't think so. The second amendment does not specify which kinds of guns we are entitled to have Marge, I’m under the impression that all types are legal.
But it puzzles me that you would support a president who puts restrictions on the second amendment, but not support another who puts restrictions on other amendments. Why is that Marge? Perhaps politics?
Careful what you say Marge, you don’t want to contradict yourself



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Really? They dont want our guns?


www.infowars.com...

www.gunowners.org...

americanfreepress.net/

www.thenewamerican.com...

www.jpfo.org...

educate-yourself.org...

www.newsmax.com...

This is just some. Thankfully, not everyone feels this way, many people are fighting against it.

As for this link

www.usatoday.com...

It says in that very article that ''Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons''.

It also says ''Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Michael Castle, R-Del., said they were disheartened. "My leadership is playing Russian roulette," Shays said. "There will be without question a horrific crime committed without an assault weapon ban, and every member of Congress will have to ask where were they on this issue."

I just thought Id point that out.

Banning semi-automatic guns is the first step, the totalitarian tip-toe, towards total gun bans. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all of them did this to get gun confiscations going. People who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


[edit on 14-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

[edit on 14-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]

mod edit to shorten link


[edit on 14-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
We own guns at least my husband does but none of them Are military type assault weapons.

I am not particularly interested on having a military type of weapon in my home.

What can I do with a machine gun if I was able to legaly buy one.

Tell me Westpoint, will you buy one?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Umm... most of your links talk about gun control under extreme circumstances such as natural disasters, it say nothing about confiscating guns under normal circumstances. And I might add that it was the very person that you have alleged wants to take “our guns away” that did not authorize an extension to he Ban.


I am not particularly interested on having a military type of weapon in my home.


Marge with all due respect who cares what your interested in, the fact of the matter is that the second amendment does not specify which guns we should own. So I ask again why do you support restrictions on some amendments and not on others?

[edit on 14-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The second amendment does not specify which kinds of guns we are entitled to have Marge, I’m under the impression that all types are legal.


Does not specify? That's not a very good argument, West Point. When the 2nd amendment was written, there was no such thing as an automatic assault rifle. It would definitely be interesting to know what the founding fathers would have to say - if they could see things now.

*I do support the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Does not specify? That's not a very good argument, West Point. When the 2nd amendment was written, there was no such thing as an automatic assault rifle.


Not a good argument? So If I told you that since E-mails and Phone calls are not specifically mentioned under the 4th amendment, and since there was no such thing as E-mail or Cell Phones when the founding fathers wrote it they should not be private. Would you say that was a good argument?



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
In the spirit of George W. Bush, I think you should accept what I say and be quiet. You're below my pay grade.


No seriously, I'll get back to you on that.. just as soon as I can......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join