Savage: Impeach Bush over immigration plan

WND ^ | 1-12-04 | N/A

[kegler4]

"But who's going to clean the crappers in Crawford?"

Shoot, who's gonna be the Catholic priests? So few Americans are going into the priesthood (about half the number 30 years ago) that some areas are having to bring in priests from other countries, particularly -- hold your breath -- Latin countries. Apparently this is truly a job that Americans don't want now.

[Howlin]

Same here.

[Howlin]

So we can put you down as one of those "Let's Teach the GOP a Lesson" conservatives?

You'd actually turn this country over to the Democrats rather than vote for the only viable candidate we have?

Good to know.

[onyx]

Wave at the reTARD. You're being stalked. You're his *star* again. LMAO!

[tomswiftjr]

You posted this quote:
"According to a RoperASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation."

A better plan would be to forfeit the assets of the employers of illegal aliens. That would dry up the market for their services immediately. Without jobs many of them would leave without deportation.

[Dante3]

I've wondered the same thing. How come Fox has such an hold on Bush? Weird, to say the least.

[Modernman]

The entire GOP are a bunch of spineless jellyfish. The rub elbows with those EVIL democrats (yes, I said EVIL!) as if they are drinking buddies or something.

A lot of them are drinking buddies. If you're a Congressman or political staffer who is unable to work with your colleagues from the other party, you don't last very long and are rarely effective. About half of Congress is made up of Dems. A Republican who doesn't accept that sometimes you need to compromise with them, isn't a very smart Republican.

If I were AG, I would not enforce any law that was contrary to GOD'S ETERNAL LAWS. This is a sin. If Ashcroft or Bush had any guts, which they don't, they would refuse to enforce abortion laws.

In such a situation, you should resign. If a public official feels that he can't do his job because his personal beliefs conflict with the job, then he should resign. Simple as that.

What are the courts going to do about it if they don't?

That's the surest road to dictatorship.

[sinkspur]

Can over 1,600 FReepers be wrong?

FReepers are representative of the far right of the country. So whether they're "right" or "wrong" is not the question.

[Happy2BMe]

As I've said, I challenge anyone to find a single mention of my not voting for Bush in November.

I'd rather it be Reagan though.

Bush is a wishy-washy polititian. He certainly meets the criteria of a successful one, I'll give him that.

But he's the best we can come up with.

[Howlin]

Both sides of my family were here before the borders became "United States" ones!

Mine, too! We are Scotch-Irish PRESBYTERIANS; heck, we've been run out of half the countries in Europe!

Try as hard as I might, I've been unable to document my great great great great great grandfather's "arrival" in this country, so I'm thinking... LOL. It's like he just dropped out of the sky.

Anyway, he redeemed himself and our family name: he was one of George Washington's aide de camp during the Revolution!

[bootless]

I guess you haven't been listening to Hannity since this proposal was first aired. He has been consistently critical of the President for the idea.

[Howlin]

I challenge anyone to find a single mention of my not voting for Bush in November.

Why don't you link us to a post where you said you would?

[jim35]

"... It is ok for someone that espouses to be a christian to make judgement upon another and make such a broad sweeping statement to say said person is not a christian?.."

It's more than just ok to do this, it's practically required. And saying a non-Christian is not a Christian is kind of what we're supposed to do.

"...This is why people like myself are turned off by religion because those that claim it use it as a tool to place themselves on a soapbox..."

Yeah, yeah. Heard it all before. Now, get off that soapbox, and stop trying to tell me what my religion tells me to do or not do. Atheists, of course, never preach, do they? They never use anti-religion as a tool, do they? Spare me.

[BigSkyFreeper]

...electing a Democrat in 2004 would probably stop Her Heinous from running in 2008.

Right, all the more reason to put any one of the 9 dwarves in the White House in 2004. /sarcasm

Frankly if she runs, she runs. Doesn't guarantee she won't win, even by a landslide. She may think she's entitled, but she's not guaranteed either.

[Poohbah]

One of the reasons I decided to finally file for citizenship a year ago is the fear that, someday, Americans might decide to kick all non-citizens, legal or illegal, out at gunpoint.

Don't think that will protect you if some of these folks have their way--they'll just write in a clause saying that "naturalized citizenship doesn't count" or something like that.

[T.Smith]

That wasn't my point at all. I wasn't espousing that strategy, just looking on the bright side.

At any rate, I do not plan on voting for Bush. I'm tired of voting Republican just to keep a Democrat out of office. I have decided that I will vote my conscience, which is to say that I will vote either independent or Libertarian.

Remember the heady days of 2002 when the Republicans gained control over the congress? We were all so excited about conservative principles finally being made policy. Can you tell me, please, which conservative principles have been enacted? Well, I can tell you about some liberal principles that have been enacted.

I'm not voting against Bush to "teach the GOP a lesson". I'm doing it because they don't represent me. If the Republicans don't represent me, and the Democrats don't represent me, then I guess I have no choice but to vote for somebody who does. That, to me, is voting morally and on principle.

[B4Ranch]

My concern would be the slow economic downturn of the illegals finacial situation. This would prompt crime, thefts, robberies and muggings, I fear.

By announcing what the rules are up front, they would know that if they expect to be able to export their belongings, stolen goods could not be included.

Did you read all of the post?

[Happy2BMe]

Seek and ye shall find.

[TommyUdo]

"That freaks out a lot of Americans- they don't realize that a lot of Hispanics were living in the US before there was a US. A lot of Texans, for example, don't know that about a third of the Texan army during their war of independence was of Mexican origin. Could it be that liberty is attractive to all people?"

Yes. One wonders which version America the heirs of the Anti-Immigrants emigrated to.

My Grandmother (born in 1862!) lived long enough to tell me tales she knew of "Old California."

There were also Mexicans very much in favor of the "Bear Flag" Revolt here in CA, too. General Vallejo, for example.

[Modernman]

Don't think that will protect you if some of these folks have their way--they'll just write in a clause saying that "naturalized citizenship doesn't count" or something like that.

I fear you might be correct. I'm even doubling up- I'm marrying an American woman this spring, so maybe that'll give me more protection. Damn foreigners, stealing American women.

Oh, well. If the USA gets that whacky, I think I might have a lot of American company up in Toronto.