 |
Re: Judge rules for UP in border drug dispute
Author: smitty195
Date: 12-21-2011 - 04:23
Michael Mahoney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly, Dr. Gingrich is well versed in
> impeachment, since he led the impeachment of the
> Senior Adulterer while simultaneously performing
> his role as Junior Adulterer.
Keep in mind that Clinton *was* impeached, and he was impeached for perjury. He was not impeached for adultery, contrary to what the news media wants people to believe. If you ask 10 random people if President Clinton was impeached, I'll bet you would get about 70% (or higher) of people saying "no". People think impeachment means getting thrown out of office, but this is not the case.
> But actually, as I
> understand it, he proposes not to impeach the bad
> judges but simply to subpoena them to come before
> Congress and -- What? Explain? Justify? Apologize
> for? -- their appalling decisions. How would this
> work?
Newt is just blowing hot air---he doesn't mean most of what he says (which is unfortunate). The GOP candidates are trying to convince everyone that they are "the conservative" on the ticket. Why? Because conservatism works every time it's tried, and it gets you elected. But neither Newt nor Romney are conservative--they are both big RINO's. Bachman and Santorum are the only true conservatives running, but they have received poor advice (in my opinion) and have not done what is necessary to become known to people. If their message got out, their numbers would shoot up--but the message just isn't getting out. So we'll be stuck with either an Obama Administration Part 2, or a RINO who will screw everything up even though they have the perfect environment for making big, positive changes to the country.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly, Dr. Gingrich is well versed in
> impeachment, since he led the impeachment of the
> Senior Adulterer while simultaneously performing
> his role as Junior Adulterer.
Keep in mind that Clinton *was* impeached, and he was impeached for perjury. He was not impeached for adultery, contrary to what the news media wants people to believe. If you ask 10 random people if President Clinton was impeached, I'll bet you would get about 70% (or higher) of people saying "no". People think impeachment means getting thrown out of office, but this is not the case.
> But actually, as I
> understand it, he proposes not to impeach the bad
> judges but simply to subpoena them to come before
> Congress and -- What? Explain? Justify? Apologize
> for? -- their appalling decisions. How would this
> work?
Newt is just blowing hot air---he doesn't mean most of what he says (which is unfortunate). The GOP candidates are trying to convince everyone that they are "the conservative" on the ticket. Why? Because conservatism works every time it's tried, and it gets you elected. But neither Newt nor Romney are conservative--they are both big RINO's. Bachman and Santorum are the only true conservatives running, but they have received poor advice (in my opinion) and have not done what is necessary to become known to people. If their message got out, their numbers would shoot up--but the message just isn't getting out. So we'll be stuck with either an Obama Administration Part 2, or a RINO who will screw everything up even though they have the perfect environment for making big, positive changes to the country.
