PEBO is angry...Boo hoo!

Ernie Lane ernielane at VERIZON.NET
Sun Feb 8 15:29:00 MST 2009


John A. Quayle wrote:
> 
>> John A. Quayle wrote:
>>> At 08:04 AM 2/6/2009, Richard Whitenight wrote:
>>>> Our raghead token President is angry at the Senate for not passing 
>>>> his massive pork laden bill. Well, pardon me you pompous ass of a 
>>>> leader,
>>>> if there are Senators who don't care to spend almost $900 billion 
>>>> for a bill full of pork. Your throne is temporary, as you'll find out in
>>>> four years, when we'll try our best to kick your ass out of office 
>>>> and regain the government back from the Socialists who are trying to 
>>>> ruin
>>>> it.
>>>          */Richard, you may be more correct about the temporary 
>>> aspect than you think. First of all, Obamaland seems to be crumbling 
>>> under the sheer volume of its own ineptitude, as yet _ANOTHER_ Obama 
>>> appointee has been found to have a tax problem. Nancy Killifer, 
>>> chosen to be the White House Chief Performance Officer (_WHERE_ did 
>>> they come up with that one???) had a lien placed on her house for a 
>>> piddling $900 tax problem (didn't report nanny earnings, or some 
>>> such. Michael Savage is reporting on his website that Obama's choice 
>>> for Labor Secretary _ALSO_ has an unpaid tax headache that goes back 
>>> 16 years! These people are becoming like "F-Troop" or "The Gang That 
>>> Couldn't Shoot Straight."
>>>         Speaking of Savage, he is gathering a groundswell of folks 
>>> seeking to have Obama impeached (yes, already) for "malfeasence."
> 
> At 10:38 AM 2/7/2009, Ernie Lane wrote:
>> Jesus, I wasn't aware of that. What a waste of time.  
> 
> */         One might think that, initially.........
> 
> /*At 10:38 AM 2/7/2009, Ernie Lane wrote:
>> Does he think Nancy Pelosi would do anything, even if 100% of 
>> Americans signed a petition? You could have a photo of Obama 
>> sodomizing a young boy and it wouldn't matter.
> 
>          */Remember, Ernie, 57-million voted _AGAINST_ Obama. 
> Collectively, they could raise a din that would be impossible to ignore. 
> Will he be able to harness such a movement? I dunno. But, if one cares 
> deeply for the country and what becomes of this nation, it's certainly 
> worth a shot!

No, it's not.  With the Democrats firmly in control of both Houses of 
Congress, it's just ridiculous.  Look, it wouldn't matter if someone had 
pictures of Obama sodomizing young boys.  Impeachment has nothing to do 
with "caring deeply for the country," it's purely political.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list