They are talking Impeachment!

yellow_peril said:
Most amusing.

Doubtless you owe more than your total assets, like most lazy USA residents.

Now you will boast and bluster, yet your nation is a nation of debt slaves, and we, the lenders, are your master.

We in China are free from debt and hard-working.

That is why our way is the winning way.

Now, please humiliate yourself intellectually again, for my amusement.
Click to expand...

You have enslaved Tibet. You are totalitarian thugs.
 
Impeachment politics did not serve the republican party during the Clinton administration and it would not serve it now. If I thought there was a chance in hell it would kill the far right wing of the party I would get behind it. Maybe then the GOP would go back to their Eisenhower and Goldwater roots.
 
Socrtease said:
Impeachment politics did not serve the republican party during the Clinton administration and it would not serve it now. If I thought there was a chance in hell it would kill the far right wing of the party I would get behind it. Maybe then the GOP would go back to their Eisenhower and Goldwater roots.
Click to expand...

You like know shit about anything. You two bit pretender.
 
Socrtease said:
Impeachment politics did not serve the republican party during the Clinton administration and it would not serve it now. If I thought there was a chance in hell it would kill the far right wing of the party I would get behind it. Maybe then the GOP would go back to their Eisenhower and Goldwater roots.
Click to expand...

The Taint Taster must have forgotten that Goldwater lost. Must be that hot sun in NM fried his brains.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yeah, about that Kyl bullshit:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWZlZDA3ODhmNDkyYWY3NGRkODNjOTJkMjM5MzVhN2M=
Click to expand...

Kyl tells us that the comments were “taken a bit out of context,” and that the “they” he was referring to was the Left, “the president’s base,” and not the administration. “I did not try to start a fight. This meeting happened a month ago and we were talking in the context of his political problems. He was talking about how they think that if we secure the border, you guys [Republicans] won’t have the incentive to work on comprehensive immigration reform.”

So Obama's dems pull his strings...tell us nigey, what has Obama done since that meeting to secure the border. How has he worked with the border states? Instead he is suing one ...did ya hear how a federal judge said he didn't have a case?

Oh and btw how about Sherrod alerting the USDA 5 days before the story broke...you said I had made that up...:)
 
yellow_peril said:
Our policies are now in place in your nation. How do you think the wasteful "campaigns" of the electoral champions were paid for?

Now, I desire more amusement, so make more inconsequential threats.
Click to expand...

You have lost the support of your people, if you ever had it. Your workers are commiting suicide and murdering children. how proud you must be.

congratulations on your shit nation. The future is slipping through your fingers.
 
Socrtease said:
Impeachment politics did not serve the republican party during the Clinton administration and it would not serve it now. If I thought there was a chance in hell it would kill the far right wing of the party I would get behind it. Maybe then the GOP would go back to their Eisenhower and Goldwater roots.
Click to expand...
How can you say that when Goldwater is the founding father or the modern reactionary right of the Republican party? Ike, sure, complete agreement there? But Goldwater? He'd fight right in with the far right wing.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How can you say that when Goldwater is the founding father or the modern reactionary right of the Republican party? Ike, sure, complete agreement there? But Goldwater? He'd fight right in with the far right wing.
Click to expand...
Barry Goldwater mellowed with age. He saw no reason to deny homosexuals the right to serve the military. He was reactionary to the madness of the 60's in which the left was completely iconoclastic and hated everything american. A movement which failed miserably by the way.
 
You're full of shit Sochead.. Goldwater would have no more endorsed Gay Marriage than OBAMA did! The issue is a political taboo... NO major national politician has endorsed it, and they aren't likely to.
 
Socrtease said:
Barry Goldwater mellowed with age. He saw no reason to deny homosexuals the right to serve the military. He was reactionary to the madness of the 60's in which the left was completely iconoclastic and hated everything american. A movement which failed miserably by the way.
Click to expand...

The Taint Taster seems fixated on this issue, for some reason.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It does not have to occur.

it depends on the value you place on keeping money in our economy, americans employed, and a capacity for all types of production skills. Protectionist polices have always had their place in governance, and will continue to going forward.
Click to expand...

The US has to export products, otherwise, there is a trade imbalance. Whatever jobs are kept here producing a product paying an artificially high wage that is one product that can't be exported.

Forcing consumers to buy a product made here at a higher price so someone can have a job is nothing more than "redistributing the wealth". Not only is that a socialist policy but it doesn't make any sense.

Let's take the "shoes example" I gave in msg. 53. Why pay $100 for a pair of shoes so Mr. Smith can have a job? Pay $25 for a pair of shoes and give Mr. Smith the extra $75.

The same can be said for appliances and other consumer products. The reason behind people having a job is so they have money. Why pay more a product to have someone make it here? Buy the product made elsewhere and use the savings to help Mr. Smith get training for a job that is required to be done here.

A change in mentality is required. Why would someone pay a higher price so Mr. Smith has a job but object to simply giving Mr. Smith the extra savings? There is no difference from a consumer standpoint, however, there is a huge difference as far as Mr. Smith is concerned.

Mr. Smith can be retrained or he can work as a volunteer at, say, a hospital and still collect money to live on.

As companies move overseas and products come down in price, be it TV sets or cars, consumers are saving money. Let's say the average family man buys a new car every five years. If he can purchase a car that's $5,000 cheaper than one made here that means he can afford to pay $1,000 more in taxes per year.

Whether the family guy buys a car made here or gives the money directly to a former car company employee what's the difference? In my view the difference is the former employee is not wasting his time doing something that someone else can do cheaper. The former employee can put his time to better use.

So, as certain companies move overseas those terminated employees should have access to funds for retraining and basic living expenses. There are companies seeking qualified employees. Let's spend the money retraining people for those jobs.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Apple, i thought leftists were pro labor? Are you only pro FOREIGN LABOR?

See how anti-americans have coopted the language of the "business world"?
Click to expand...

You'll find the answer in my last post. Yes, I'm pro labor because people require a job to make money to live. I'm not pro labor when labor is not necessary.
 
yellow_peril said:
You have already paid, racist idiot.

Now, boast and bluster some more with additional impotent imprecations, I desire more amusement.
Click to expand...

Debt does not equate to someone getting paid, as Asshate alluded to. Anyone who ever loaned a classmate money for the vending machines back in junior high understands this.
 
apple0154 said:
That's right, AssHat! Just as people change credit cards and do a "balance transfer" we'll find other countries and keep transferring the balance!

:good4u:
Click to expand...

I think the reality is, though, that if the world economy ever got to the point of desperation, powerful countries such as the US, UK, and Germany could simply refuse to pay off debts, whereas countries such as Greece would be screwed.
 
Dixie said:
You're full of shit Sochead.. Goldwater would have no more endorsed Gay Marriage than OBAMA did! The issue is a political taboo... NO major national politician has endorsed it, and they aren't likely to.
Click to expand...
Goldwater endorsed the open service of gays in the military. The man was a true Libertarian, especially in the last years of his life.

FROM GOLDWATER HIMSELF It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"
Click to expand...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html
 
Dixie said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment/

TANCREDO: The case for impeachment
Obama has violated his oath of office over immigration

By Tom Tancredo

Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."

I've always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside, and French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville agreed with that warning.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the greatest threat to our nation was clear - and foreign. While Islamic terrorism still represents the greatest external threat to America and American lives, the avowed program of the Obama regime has changed the picture in a fundamental way.

For the first time in American history, we have a man in the White House who consciously and brazenly disregards his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. That's why I say the greatest threat to our Constitution, our safety and our liberties, is internal. Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department's legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles. To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or "transcended" through international agreements or "norms."

Mr. Obama's paramount goal, as he so memorably put it during his campaign in 2008, is to "fundamentally transform America." He has not proposed improving America - he is intent on changing its most essential character. The words he has chosen to describe his goals are neither the words nor the motivation of just any liberal Democratic politician. This is the utopian, or rather dystopian, reverie of a dedicated Marxist - a dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House.

Because of the power he wields over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and even health care, his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

Mr. Obama's actions, not just his words, show the threat he poses. A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents.

Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.
Click to expand...

Every registered Republican should be taken out into the fields and shot, then thrown into a landfill, and we should bill the surviving family members for the bullets after we've neutered them as retribution for producing such nonhumans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top