DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Poll says 45% think Bush should be impeached

Just clicking here......

I wonder how many people posting within this thread actually know what an impeachable offense is, or the means which is necessary in order to carry it out???

(without googling it, of course)

I know and that's why I find what some are saying on here as silly. The vast majority of people in this country don't have a clue and this survey proves it.

Pit, your little game is getting old. I know you are informed enough to know this is a bogus issue and your responses in this thread are lame. You say how we are belittling people for their point of view because we are blinded to the facts. Show me any proof that Bush has commited an impeachable offense.

By the way you have attacked those in this thread just like you say they are doing to others.

Buddy I am just over 20 some hours from having a Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Degree. I think scoring in the 99th percentile on my SAT for the math portion, 4 Advanced(College advanced) Calculus Classes as well as my Diferential Equations Classes qualifies me just fine....

What I do know is this....the equations for caculating a the sample size for a large population (say over 100,000) does not take the actual size of the population into account. It isn't even a part of the equation........So basically a sample size for a 110,000 population is the same as a 300,000,000 population....And frankly as an engineer, that is freaking laughable. As a Programmer, who has to deal quite a bit with exactness and details....That equation is a joke

if we need to calculate a sample size n ( actually they use n subscript o but can't do subscripts here) the equation is thus....

n = (Z) squared (p)(q)
------------------------
(e)squared

n is the sample size being calculated. Z is the the point on the x axis of a bell curve that you think is a true representation of the population or the Confidence Level.( for 95% CI the value will be 1.96) p is the estimated proportion of an attribute in a population(if we don't know we will use .5 for maximum variance) q is equal to 1-p ( so .5) Lastly e is the precision we are aiming for....in the case of our debate they said +or- 3% or .03

Now AGAIN I state.....NOWHERE in this equation is the size of the population even CONSIDERED...

pretty simple calculation we get 3.8416 multiplied by .25 all divided by.0009 which gives us 1067 and some change.....

NOW This calculation is supposed to represent the sample size of a 100,000 person population AS WELL AS a 300,000,000 population????? Sorry...Charlie I don't buy it. If Engineers decided to design things in this way we would never have made it out of the stone age......

Take your satistics class and well you know the rest.....

Quick whats one plus one Pete?

Bragger.

Well it's taken him 10 min. and he still has not figured out 1 + 1

Pete is a blowhard ex cross country runner. Wait, that describes me too.

That reminds me Shep....to continue to Bomber....the Question is biased because it is purposely intended to take advantage of the ignorance of peoples knowledge of the impeachment process.....It is worded exactly to entice those who have negative feelings toward the President.


And the breakup of the of the political affiliation is NOT what the actual representation of America is...it is a representation of what the pollsters are trying to make it be. See I think the pollsters wanted to have an equal 33% across all three lines...so they can say they were being equal....It doesn't change the facts that There were more Democrats asked (whose opinion is skewed towards their question) than the others and FAR more than those who would have balanced the out and lessened the result they were looking for.

However...going back to your statistics class....IF they really were shooting for equality ...that is 33.3% across each political affiliation......according to the statistical analysis information I have read and been privy to....they would have had to question at least 1100 people IN EACH AFFILIATION or 3300 people....So AGAIN even according to statistical analysis practices we can STILL throw this poll out the window

Wait....let me get my handy dandy calculator....I get it .....wait for it.......Damn...my batteries are shot....I'll get back to you on that

Yeah...It was many years and many pounds ago I was actually able to run sub 16's....DAMN getting old and lazy sucks...LOL

Ain't that the truth!

Quote:

---

Good because I can't figure it out

---

The answer is the amount of beers you have left from the 12 pack that you started 10 min. ago. Or the number Jules can count up to without using her fingers for help.

It's ONE Thank bud

you're welcome.

Now I can tell your wife you really ARE good for something

Quote:

---

That reminds me Shep....to continue to Bomber....the Question is biased because it is purposely intended to take advantage of the ignorance of peoples knowledge of the impeachment process.....It is worded exactly to entice those who have negative feelings toward the President.

---

As most polls are, and in a roundabout reason why there are no polls on this message board.

The question asked is usually not asked in order to find out the feeling of a group of people, but rather to justify what the people doing the research are trying to justify or substantiate.

Quote:

---

However...going back to your statistics class....IF they really were shooting for equality ...that is 33.3% across each political affiliation......according to the statistical analysis information I have read and been privy to....they would have had to question at least 1100 people IN EACH AFFILIATION or 3300 people....

---

I disagree....but stats class was awhile ago.....

Wouldn't you actually have to determine how many people are in each affilitation, and then get a sampling that would be representative of the equal percentages?

Quote:

---

A large part of common sense is knowing when you have nothing to contribute to the argument when you have no knowledge of the subject in question whatsoever -- or taking the initiative to educate yourself in the subject if you want to your opinion to be taken seriously.

But, I'm sure you knew that already.

---

Like 45% of Americans saying a president should be impeached when there is no proof he committed an impeachable offense.

.. You know my friends ( and I mean that ) .. I don't really care how you you feel about this Admin. at this juncture ! What I do care about is the big , hugeic , gigundus , divide between my fellow Country men .. I go back to the Nam days ( I was there ) and am not sure we where this much " Blue & Red States " back then . I mean California has always been , well California and so on ..

I am more concerned about how we move forward . Fix the Problem not the blame .

Impeach Ribbon Car Magnet
Show your support for Impeachment! Get Your Impeach Ribbon Car Magnet!

'Impeach Bush' Stickers
Anti War, Liberal, Anti Bush Professionally printed decals

These are from the ads at the bottom of the page. Glad someone is profitting from our misery.

Shep, I knew of the vague defination of an impeachable offense, but I went to google anyways and got a fairly good defination of how the founding fathers set it up and how it might be used today from a couple of different websites.
Below is a summary of how it has passed through time

Summary: According to the Constitution: "...Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Treason and Bribery are clear. The definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was left intentionally vague by the founders but is generally considered to refer to misconduct or a violation of the public trust that is injurious to society. They are not limited to statutory violations (breaking regular laws).

A President often does things that people disagree with. But those actions are not normally something that can lead to impeachment. This leads us to an important question: for what specific actions can a President or Officer be impeached?

The basis for impeachment comes from the US Constitution. Article II, Sec. 4 states that:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The crimes of Treason and Bribery are fairly straightforward. But what are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The framers of the Constitution deliberately borrowed this phrase from English parliamentary law. It was first used in 1386 to impeach the King's Chancellor. Michael de le Pole, Earl of Suffolk. He broke a promise to parliament regarding improvements in the King's Estate and also failed to pay ransom money for the town of Ghent.

In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.[1] They stated:

'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'

The subject of impeachment was debated by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional conventions. The Federalist Papers give rationale for many parts of the Constitution and are often used to interpret the intent of the framers.

In Federalist No. 65 [2], Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:

"those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself"

James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional convention, argued that the President:

"Must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,"

The general message from interpreters of the Constitution is that impeachable offenses are not limited to specific violation of criminal statutes. The contitution was intentionally vague on this point to allow flexibility in prosecuting a President. Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833:

"Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law."

A more recent writing reinforces the vague definition of an impeachable offense. In a House Judiciary sub-committee panel discussion on the Clinton impeachment, Rep. Charles Canaday, (R) Florida wrote [3]:

"The House has never in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding adopted either a comprehensive definition of high crimes and misdemeanors or a catalogue of offenses that are impeachable. Instead, the House has dealt with the misconduct of federal officials on a case by case basis..."

Back in 1970, Rep. Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That is probably a reasonable definition, consistent with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Basically at this time, an impeachable offense is anything that you can get 67 members of the senate to agree on. You don't have to look hard to find topics that he could be brought up on. They include lying to the congress about intel he received leading up to Iraq war, if he or Cheney knew about Plame and "leaked" info to get back at her hubby, holding people without charging them, or ordering detainee abuse. But the one that he admitted to and he probably could be brought up on is the NSA domestic spying issue.

Quote:

---

he question was a simple one..........Do you feel he SHOULD be impeached. Not has he commited impeachable offenses. And it appears many feel he has commited such offenses

---

So this poll shows 45% of Americans have no clue what an impeachable offense is.

OR,they feel he has commited impeachable acts. One of which may include refusing to honor a supoena.

OR they feel since he's "hiding everything and refuses to be accountable" that he's guilty of "abuse of the power of the presidency".

So no,it's the same old story from many of you.Anybody who disagrees,must be stupid. Wrong. They see things differently than you. They see "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the vague term that it is,and feel his actions fit well within those bounds.

That's right,everybody that disagrees with your view is not "stupid". But it's a typical and expected reaction. Nothing new there.

Quote:

---

The Iraq war is a war of ego, lies, and money. I'm not going to argue that Saddam wasn't a horrible human being, and he got everything he deserved. But not at the cost of 3,500+ american soldiers. A few of those were my friends.

---

So, who did we impeach for the Viet Nam war? A cost of nearly 60,000 Americian soldiers. More than a few were my friends.

And for what??

What did it ever accomplish? For that matter, what were they trying to accomplish?

I served there. I don't know what good I did anyone by that.

Were the American people not lied to about anything going on in that conflict?

"...The sad part about it is,they don't seem to get it,that their dismissive,belittling and self rightious attitude is exactly what's turning most of the public against their kind and this administration."

Phil, neither party's most vocal partisans are much different than the other groups supporters are....
I would be hard pressed to name more than 10 nationally known politicians who aren't first self centered opportunists and secondly intelligent schemers who protect their office more than protect our Constitution.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle will vehemently protest the slightest veering from the Constitution when it is advantageous to their "team" and the next day deride any pol who refuses to understand that the Constitution is a "living,breathing and constantly evolving" roadmap to freedom.

Pit - hate Bush and his buddies as you will...hate right leaning authoritarians as you will...but admit that when it comes to hypocrites the left is equally stocked as the right appears to be. I'll trade you a few pols on the right like Trent Lott and pretenders like Arlen Specter for a few of your fools like Chuck Schumer[who I believe is the worst form of politician to exist] and Dick Durbin or Harry Reid.

We disagree on the need to stay and kill Islamists in Iraq and other Arab lands regardless of the terrible monetary cost. We disagree often on liberal policies of gov't which results in income distribution from one person or group to another person or group. It is a normal happening.

Surely we don't disagree that the workings of Washington, DC. politicians is horrible with no honor left at all...no honor left at all.

No,I agree that politicians on both sides are equally corrupt and self serving. I don't see either party as any more moral or patriotic than the other. I think it's a fairly equal distribution from both sides.

I was simply pointing out that far more hate filled venom is spewed by the "conservative media from the right". Let's face it,Michael Moore,while not accurate in his assertions the vast majority of the time,plays far more on the plight of the poor and plays "the sympathy card" a lot. That too is purely a political tactic.But the public,IMO,finds that approach far more pallitable than the venemous strategy used by the right in the media.

But I think that the "talking heads" like O'Rielly,Limbaugh and Coulter,are using personal attacks,venom and belittling of their oponents. And over the course of time,are proving to be far more of a detriment to the conservative movement,than a help.

Simply because I feel the American public are getting sick of that approach. I feel more rational,fact filled discussion and less venom spewed from them,would be far more productive in helping their cause.

JMHO

The guy will most likely go down as the worst president in history...I don't need a poll to tell whether or not a handful of people think he's awful...

...at this point, I'm just curious to know who's defending him. His Iraq plan was an absolute and complete disaster...the least thought out action of any president in a long time. He spends money left and right, has absolutely no fiscal responsibility, and thumbs his nose at anyone who disagrees with him. He's a liberal spender, a liberal nation builder...how can any conservative defend the guy outside of blind loyalty to the GOP?

He's a disgrace to his country, and I doubt he gets impeached, although he certainly deserves it.

Ron Paul in '08

No,we disagree on Iraq. We agree 100% on Afghanastan. So I'd have to say we "half way agree" at this juncture.


And it's not that I hate "Bush". I hate some of his policies. I hate some of his decisions. I hate his propencity for secrecy and the "appearace" that he feels he's above the law and accountable to no one.

He is our president. And as to that point of fact,I don't "hate him". The best way I can describe it is,you love you kids right? But in many cases in life,they disapoint us by their actions,and sometimes hate some of the things they do. But we don't "hate our children".

Much like Bush. I hate many of the things he does and I hate some of his policies. But I don't "hate" our president.

I hope I explained that in way that people can see the point I'm trying to make there.......

JMHO

IMO-That's a great call,but his odds are pretty slim Tyler. Given the choice,I'd vote for him over anyone running. But I simply feel he'll never get the nomination,because he's not a party insider and doesn't walk the chalk line on the GOP platform. Sad really. But that's just how it works.

JMHO

So true.