Posted on 08/30/2005 10:34:44 PM PDT by goldstategop
Don't we just wish that Albert Gore had been elected??? Or, perhaps, Buchanan and Farrah would prefer John Kerry????
If that's not what they prefer, then they are about to assure that one of the Far Left Democrats will most certainly "lead" the country in 2008! Yes, lead it straight to socialism and tyranny!!
Your very welcome
The threat of impeachment, made by citizens and two irrelevant columnists, means less than nothing. No matter how many times you post, all you're doing is wasting your time and giving support to raving nutter such as Crazy Cindy Sheeham; not to mention her crowd of anarchists.
To date, one and only ONE, elected president has been impeached, in the entire history of this nation and the Senate refused to kick him out. Had they done so, we would now have "President algore".
Neither you nor anyone else who is calling for this now, no matter the reason, don't know nor understand how this government works, nor what you're saying/typing.
Thank God for that. Otherwise we would already have a new President in control.
When mayor after mayor and governor after governor have forbade the police, teachers, welfare workers, doctors, nurses, and just about everyone else, from turning in known illegals, what do you think this president or any other could have done? And please don't tell me that he should have prosecuted every single one of them. That goes beyond his authorized powers.
So you really think Cyndi Sheehan supports border security and immigration law enforcement?
To date, one and only ONE, elected president has been impeached, in the entire history of this nation and the Senate refused to kick him out. Had they done so, we would now have "President algore".
So you didn't/don't approve of the impeachment of Clinton? And oh, by the way, the Republican Senate wouldn't convict Clinton, not because he wasn't guilty, but because they didn't want to face an incumbent President Gore in 2000. Principled.
Why nothing. Nothing at all.
Specifically, what problem is 100 years old? Are you referring to the impact on our hospitals, jails, schools, traffic, crime, social services etc?
I was all for Clinton's impeachment and anyone who REALLY has principles would have voted to oust him; the threat of algore as a sitting president, or no. And the Senators were a quivering basket case, who didn't vote to oust Slick Willie because they were unprincipled. Heck, the Senate, as a whole, refuse, utterly, to allow a full trial to occur.
If you could address 388
And there really isn't anything that the president can do, about the mayors and governors who thumb their collective noses at the law. And if you imagine that he could, then what is it? Put them all on trial? It's never been done and I'd like you to find, in the Constitution, in the enumerated powers of a president, it list what he can/must do.
What does this have to do with the question put forth?
Specifically, what problem is 100 years old? Are you referring to the impact on our hospitals, jails, schools, traffic, crime, social services etc?
During the early 1950s, for example, things were so bad, that even Hollywood knew about it and made a movie ( fiction, but based on fact! ) about it.
Pancho Villa, in the early part of the 20th century, made raids into the USA and committed crimes.
History matters; learn some. I'm tired of teaching it, over and over and over and over and OVER again, to those of you who don't know enough of it.
It has everything to do with your reply to me. Don't play the fool.
I am sorry, the 1950 can not be compared with what is happening now, today. is this an attempt to skirt the issue?
Can we get try and get into this era?
Excuse me?
Let's play.....
I don't have all day........see you soon
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.