Staredit Network

Opinion Poll Rules
1. Statements of opinion must be thorough and thought out. Blatant exclamations of "IDIOT!!", for example, will not be tolerated.
2. No flaming people while stating your opinion.
3. A new opinion poll will be posted in less that pi weeks.

Last Week: A fairly large majority disapproved of the job done by President Bush.

This Week: As more and more things happen, I get more and more disgusted with the policies of the Bush administration. The only two presidents ever to be impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The only president ever to be universally deserving of impeachment was Richard Nixon, who resigned instead. The impeachments of both Johnson and Clinton were unbased partisan moves, made as stints by the opposing party to remove the leader they hate from office.

So, I ask you this. Given two partisan impeachments based on paltry crimes, are the overextensions of power into the NSA wiretapping of President Bush grounds for impeaching him?


My Response: Yes. I believe so. If a president can be impeached for lying about his personal life, I certainly think that someone who secretly orders our rights to be compromised deserves at least the same if not more.


List of all previous polls
1.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?
2.Is Communism a good idea?
3.References to God should be removed (i.e. "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on money)
4.Is I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby Guilty?
5.What are your thoughts over the current evidence of corruption in the government?
6.Are you disturbed by in overwhelming Mexican/Hispanic influence on the US?
7.Are love and lust essentially the same thing, varying in intensity?
8.Do you approve of the way President Bush is doing his job?

Hmmm... you've pretty much covered how I feel about it. I hate to regurgitate other people's words in my posts.

Of course, you know that the spying is ILLEGAL. I've mentioned this before, but Bush has said that the spying is a wartime privelage, but he has also said that the war on terror is a never ending war (in the same speech, mind you). You can see where I'm going with this...

As for my OPINION on the impeachment issue, I say "sure, why not?", but it's not going to happen, at least not now. Bush has always been able to blame deficiencies on other government departments and never takes the blame personally. I guess the reason Clinton got speared is because he couldn't blame his blow job on "unreliable government intelligence". (I just made a funny)

It's absolutely grounds for impeachment. The president broke the law. There should be consquences.

Amen.

The president didnt JUST break the law, he took our privacy away.(even thou im canadian, not american..)

why was nixon impeached again....?

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned shortly after the Watergate bonanza struck hard against his presidency and reputation.

Though, he did say "I have impeached myself by resigning."

Am I the only one who sees absolutely no problem in this? Presidents have broken so many laws, we could impeach them in an instant. You need Congress's approval to use the military, unless attacked first and using the military in a defensive form. The only people who are having the calls tapped are people in contact with possible terrorists. Its not like you call your friends and the NSA is listening on to which movie your going to see.

The choices here are to drastic I feel. This isn't grounds for impeachment but it does go against various rights and whatever action that is needed should be taken.

Anyway, I feel that this isn't a good idea. Its not like some terrorist is going to call on a phone and start talking how they're going to do their next bombing with absolutley no security. When will the day come even the govt. follows the laws they create.

The spying doesn't necessarily pose a problem to the average citizen, but I'll tell you what the real danger is. (I've said this before) During The Red Scare, the government was spying on the country in an effort to sniff out potential communist threats. However, when someone would start gaining momentum, and prove to be a threat to a politician's (or group, lobbyist, law, etc.) livelihood, then evidence would conveniently surface that they were affiliated with communists.

In other words, if you were to become a successful person, but your success proved to be a threat to someone with the right connections, then evidence might conveniently pop up that you've been helping the terrorists. Your reputation would be destroyed. Everything you've worked your whole life to attain. It would be your word against the FBI or CIA, or whoever's in charge of the spying. Who do you think a jury would believe?

I have trouble understanding the question clearly. -_-;

Did you mean

"Should the executive order to the NSA to blah blah blah call for impeachment"

It could happen, but there would have to be some real proof. Just saying Jim Bob Bill called Osama but not coming up with anything else won't work.

ADDITION:
Just noticed this: I am the only person to have voted for no.

You guys are being kind of immature about this when you say that Bush broke a law. I mean sure, I was mad too when I first heard this and I wanted him to be impeached for this too. But, it's not like Bush is an idiot. I mean yes, considering he's a president he should be well over "misunderestimation" but can we all get out of our 4th-grade like attitudes saying that his IQ is like 89. But I do not approve of the way he is doing his job. Unless you are being some out of mind radicalist, the elections were not rigged, and for at least a good 48% of the nation to vote for Bush is saying that we are dumb just as well. Now as for the reasons that he did this wasn't just to excersize and test his political powers. He did it because Al-Qeuda is planning something, it's not like they took rest for a couple years or so. Even if they are not making active progress now does not mean the terrorists and insurgents have lost interest in extremist and radicalist islam. Bush did this to save American lives.

Now, you guys are saying that what he is doing is against American and Constitutional rights. The Constitutionality of laws is sometimes outright stubborn! Stubborn restrictions to laws are indeed much better than loose restrictions which can cause dictatorships and cruel despotist powers, but sometimes we must use our common sense. The chance of America turning into a dictatorship is low right now. That chance is definitely lower than the chances of Al-Qeuda doing terrorism without aided "unconstitutional" defense. I'm not saying he stopped another 9/11 and he is being very noble with this, but there is at least some reason to do what he is doing. That reason is enough in my opinion.

Nope, small price to pay for a few years protection. And I do believe the news reporters who leaked this information should be criminalized and brought to court.

Theres nothing much wrong with it right now, but it might get into the wrong hands.

The NSA is not listening to your phone calls. You are not a terrorist/terrorist funder.

And freedom of speech, there really is none. Hate speech anyone???

I believe there is a law, that was passed after WW1, that if you have information, ANY information that is officially classified by our government, you CANNOT publish it. I need to ask my teachers about it and read some of my text books to find it but I know its there.

Plus I dislike missguided muckrakering in general.


He also said in his Bio that you should be like Jesus. I don't think athiests would approve of that...

Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I hate Christianity. Ben Franklin's religious beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that I agree with that quote.

That wasn't his religious belief. It was part of a step program to better your life that he created. It has things to do with the American dream etc.

Its also only international calls. Not stupid college anti-war rallies.

The point is YOU will never be phoned tapped the way you are as of now. But if you, say, call up SEEKING a terrorist or terrorist organizer in another country, and donate money/help the terrorist's cause, then there is a good chance our government will be watching you.

Pretty much the policy is, when dealing with terrorists, if you personally think what you are doing with terrorists is wrong, then it pretty much is.

And correct, it is not hate speech to talk with some one about how jews suck. But if you were to go up to a jew, and say "You farking suck, Hitler didn't finish the job and now the world is ruined!!!111" and if the jew is offended by this and files a report, it will probably be classified as hate speech and cause you to be in trouble. And please don't act like you don't know what hate speech is.