It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: buster2010

Lot of nerve there.

The party of 'no' eh?

Like this party ?



WASHINGTON, June 28 — President Bush’s effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed in the Senate today, with little hope that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009.


www.nytimes.com...



The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers


en.wikipedia.org...

Immigration could have been fixed YEARS AGO.

It could have also been fixed when the Democrates held the house, and senate, and president from 2008 to 2010.

THEY CHOSE NOT TOO.

The country got 'affordable' healthcare bullsnip.

Nice try but the LEFT owns the current border crisis.

You do know that bill was dreamed up by a democrat right? And in 07 when the reform was voted on when it came to voting power the Republicans had more voters so why didn't it pass?

The Republican President wanted it to pass and some of the leading Democrats wanted it to pass so why didn't it? Because the conservatives didn't want it to pass. It could have passed had the Republicans voted with the President from their party. It was a shame it didn't pass because it was a good bill.




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I just made the mistake of going to Breitbart (Jesus, that place is insane) and reading Palin's statement. It's badly written drivel from start to finish that shows that she really is a moron who shouldn't be left in charge of a whelk stall. She can't even write in coherent sentences.


I see someone read Saul Alinsky's

Rules for radicals.

Attack and marginalize,

Also called shooting the messenger to avoid talking about the article content.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




You do know that bill was dreamed up by a democrat right? And in 07 when the reform was voted on when it came to voting power the Republicans had more voters so why didn't it pass?


I guess this doesn't mean what it means:



The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You have some interesting points, Beez, but I think the blame lies on us.

We're so willing to become outraged about racism, politics and all sorts of other irrelevant crap that we forget to pick up the pitchfork from time to time and clean out the crooks in government.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said we have a republic, if we can keep it? We failed to "keep" it.




posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Here's a video that cover's some pretty good impeachable facts I do believe.

But many here will sat this guys a Nut!
To Each Their Own way Of Thinking.
Our's is.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




The right waits til people get out of the womb.


EW ouch!



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: beezzer

You have some interesting points, Beez, but I think the blame lies on us.

We're so willing to become outraged about racism, politics and all sorts of other irrelevant crap that we forget to pick up the pitchfork from time to time and clean out the crooks in government.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin that said we have a republic, if we can keep it? We failed to "keep" it.



Oh, it is our fault. We voted in the scum that is busy ruining the country.

But that does not excuse them. They lied to America.
They don't give a damn about immigrants, legal or otherwise.

They don't give a damn about anything except what benefits them.

We hired them to do a job. They (the politicians) have failed.

They need to be fired.

From a large cannon, preferably.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




Oh, it is our fault. We voted in the scum that is busy ruining the country.


I gots an idear!

Let's deport them!



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: beezzer




Oh, it is our fault. We voted in the scum that is busy ruining the country.


I gots an idear!

Let's deport them!


What country would take them?



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




What country would take them?


China ?

They should meet their banker, and their 'industrial base'.

Bout time.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


WASHINGTON, June 28 — President Bush’s effort to overhaul the nation’s immigration policy, a cornerstone of his domestic agenda, collapsed in the Senate today, with little hope that it can be revived before Mr. Bush leaves office in January 2009.


www.nytimes.com...

Immigration could have been fixed YEARS AGO.

THEY CHOSE NOT TOO.


I suppose you were all for Bush's effort back then? If so then you would support an identical effort if Obama could get it passed? Right, that seems to be what your response here suggests. From your link:

The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure the nation’s borders.

Mr. Bush placed telephone calls to lawmakers throughout the morning, but members of his party abandoned him in droves, with only 12 of the 49 Senate Republicans sticking by him on the key procedural vote that determined the bill’s fate. The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who decried it as a form of amnesty for lawbreakers.

Supporters of the bill agreed with opponents on one point: Many Americans believe that the government lacks the ability to carry out the huge responsibilities it would have had under the bill.

Supporters of the bill wanted to pass it quickly, “before Rush Limbaugh could tell the American people what was in it,” Mr. Sessions said.


So, you really are for solutions and not just political rabble-rousing. Commendable.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
It seems to me the impeachment boat is not an option. Something must be done IMMEDIATELY and dont expect any help from those infesting Washington, who caused this crises.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Erongaricuaro




I suppose you were all for Bush's effort back then? I


Thought my position on illegal immigration was clear.

Secure the border.

Enforce the LAW.

Doesn't matter LEFT or RIGHT.

Anyone who put's their parties above the best interests of this country.

DESERVE what Eric Cantor got.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



From a large cannon, preferably.


beez, you think too small. I'd rather go this route.



We round em all up and launch away...but we put it on pay-per-view. Half of the profit goes to the cable companies to satisfy the free-market types, and the other half goes to fund universal healthcare to satisfy the "left".

See, we can compromise.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Let's do it so we can get a conservative in there and he/she, well who are we kidding, he can save the US!
Who is going to replace barry from the right? Who is your guys knight in shinning armor?


STOP VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS CHILDREN!!! HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED YOUR LESSON YET??



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

the source that you used has fuzzy math and double speak.

example, this is the first sentence above the quote you used from the wiki.




The Pew Hispanic Center estimated in December 2012 that there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States as of March 2011, unchanged from the previous two years and a continuation of the sharp decline from its peak of 12 million in 2007.


first, they consider a drop of 900,000 out out 12 million a sharp decline. wrong 1,200,000 would be 10% so the the drop is less than 10%.more like 9%
second, see the word unchanged. that to me means that they quit leaving, and there are still 11.1 million illegals, not unauthorized immigrants. unauthorized means,not having official permission or approval to do something. these people broke the law.
thrid, see the word continuation, it is not a continuation of a decline, it's a stabilization of the number of 11.1 million staying here and no more coming in.

then there's this, i showed where they say 11.1 million down from12 million in the first sentence you left out.
further down in the quote it they start using numbers that are higher and then go lower than what they give in the first sentence.

example,




12.5 million in August 2007 at its peak. This decreased by 1.3 million to 11.2 million by July 2008 (11%)


whether it's 9% or 11%, that is not a great big number. there are still close to 11 million illegals in this country.



Based on the Department of Homeland Security estimates in 2009, unauthorized immigrant population living in the United States decreased to 10.8 million in January 2009 from 11.6 million in January 2008.


then for the same time frame they say the number of illegals grew by 27%.


Between 2000 and 2009, the unauthorized population grew by 27 percent.


all fuzzy numbers and double speak, telling lies to the citizens of the United States.

one thing i thought was funny, in your quote it said that they were leaving was "due to either increased law enforcement or fewer job opportunities". i can tell you it wasn't law enforcement.

i used to run a repair shop and we had a lot of general contractors come in to have equipment repaired.
when the housing bubble poped they said that all the mexcians were leaving in our area cuase they couldn't find any work.



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Exclusive—Sarah Palin: 'It's Time to Impeach' President Obama


Do it....

see what happens, then please just stfu.


This playing the ultimate crybaby victim by conservatives is not helping your cause,
and will not gain any votes for the Republicans.

I hope you do impeach Obama. He lied and sold out to the neocons and should be impeached.

But do you honestly think the GOP has enough guts to even try; being as they too are joined at the hip with the neocons.

Do you think Sarah really means it or is just pandering to her followers trying to keep what little bit of relevancy she has left?




“The universe doesn’t give you what you ask for with your thoughts - it gives you what you demand with your actions.”
― Steve Maraboli



edit on 8-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Who is looking out for us? No one. Not the Dems or the Reps. We can place the blame on Obama since he is in office, but it does nothing to get to the heart of the matter and we will just keep blaming one side or the other....forgetting that there are real issues that need attention.

So I can agree with some of what Palin has said, but coming from her we can automatically assume her intent is political. She doesn't care about you or I anymore than Obama does.

Side note: What does she mean by battered wife? Has her hubby been whoopin' her? Maybe I am misunderstanding the context, but it seems like a dumb thing to say.


The comparison is often used for a person or persons who still support people or causes that hurt us. Like a battered wife will often stay with her husband even though he hurts her because "she loves him," people will still keep voting for the failed politicians and policies even though they hurt us because "Obama (or whomever) really cares about us!"



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Whoa, not so fast, cowboy. My previous question:
I suppose you were all for Bush's effort back then?

You claim a solution was at hand but suggest it was rejected for purely partisan reasons.


Thought my position on illegal immigration was clear.


Not quite. So you DID support Bush's immigrations effort you had alluded to? You didn't quite answer my question about that particular bill.

Your link - www.nytimes.com...

The bill called for the biggest changes to immigration law in more than 20 years, offering legal status to millions of illegal immigrants while trying to secure the nation’s borders.

The vote followed an outpouring of criticism from conservatives and others who decried it as a form of amnesty for lawbreakers. The outcome was a bitter disappointment for Mr. Bush and other supporters of a comprehensive approach...



Secure the border.

Enforce the LAW.


And you suggest Bush could have accomplished that with this reform effort?

You put this up as an example of a partisan rejection to a viable solution to this problem years ago. Many suggest it was largely rejected because of its 'amnesty' solution for millions of unlawful immigrants already in the country at that time.

Do you still consider amnesty a viable and integral part to a solution now? If not then we should not assume a change of stance on your part now would reflect any partisan leanings, right? So you're still good to go with a Reagan-esque blanket amnesty solution? Or, why not now?


edit on 8-7-2014 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Erongaricuaro




You claim a solution was at hand but suggest it was rejected for purely partisan reasons.


Wait WHAT ?

This was partisan ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Care to point out how ?


edit on 8-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join