PEBO is angry...Boo hoo!
John A. Quayle
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Sun Feb 8 16:37:48 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
>>>> */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!
At 05:29 PM 2/8/2009, Ernie Lane wrote:
>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.
This is precisely the attitude that emboldens the DC elite of BOTH
parties into acting without fear of retribution. This is why we have the
predicament we find ourselves in. People think it's not worth the trouble.
Impeachment was meant to be the "quality assurance" provision of the
Constitution, while the 2nd Amendment is the "reset button." In today's
political climate, we need to use BOTH of these tools freely.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk