Posted on 11/28/2005 10:35:22 AM PST by Ben Mugged
LOL! They've NEVER gotten over their boy Billy getting impeached...
So i guess it is bad to be pro wealth? The left just dont get it.
Perhaps they haven't yet heard: the vote was 403 to 3 against ending the supposedly illegal war that we were supposedly duped into by the supposedly lying President who they supposedly think they can impeach.
http://cafepress.com/403to3
If we lose the House in 06....this is exactly what will happen, don't doubt it for a second!!! If we lose the Senate too, there is going to be lots of trouble...
love how the company link to the orginal article reads...
I think its more than that. I think they want to re-enact Watergate.
Democrats are evil, perverted, sick, traitors.
Oops ;-)
So what, then we will impeach their next President!
is it unamerican to be antiwar.?
It isn't wrong to be anti-war, but our enemies aren't anti-war. The anti-war position in this case implies that Americans are, by and large, expendable.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm sure that many Democrats would love to vote to impeach Bush, if for no other reason than petty "payback" for what they consider the "improper" impeachment of Clinton. If the Democrats took back the House I would say it's a possibility. But the electoral wave that would allow a majority of not only Democrats, but pro-impeachment Democrats, to gain control would have to be so huge that this would likely be one of our lesser problems. I can't believe the American public would let that happen, even though a lot can happen in a year and the Republicans frequently do an awful job of making their case and defending themselves.
On the other hand, I think back to the 403 to 3 vote on the withdrawal resolution and say "put up or shut up" to the Democrats. No one has introduced any impeachment resolution, and again I have more faith in the American public than to think they would allow, much less support, this. I hope I'm not being hopelessly naive! But I also think those who are most concerned about this make the mistake of taking the loudness and intensity of the Bush haters and interpreting it as evidence of broad support of such an action. Again, I don't think it's there. The concept of "the silent majority" is a cliche but still relevant. A bunch of yahoos screaming and working to secure donations from the moonbat crowd is not a majority.
Oh no! (Pant! pant!...)
If "we" lose the house... it may lead to more taxes, more regulation, bigger government and...
Hey! Wait a minute! That's what happened when the Republicans took over!
... Never mind!
Curious, isn't it?
Impeach Bush was probably formed in 2000.
Good point. As Bush said, we all have the right to criticize the decision to go to war or Bush's conduct of the war (whether it's a good idea to exercise that right, and exactly how to do so, are other questions), but the "Bush lied" canard is so ridiculous on its face that it's hard to see any legitimate purpose for it, other than to weaken the commander-in-chief.
Some people are great at pacing themselves . . .
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.