Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jun 7, 2007.
Do you agree with the article?
Do you favor expelling 10,000,000 illegals?
How would you go about rounding them up?
I agree with the bulk of the article.
Rounding up the illegals is not necessarily key to the topic of the article. The issue is that an executive or congressmen that does not enforce the law and does not protect the country they swore to defend are guilty of betraying that country and should thus be removed of their public "service". To answer your questions though, I do favor expelling the 20,000,000 illegals as they are criminals and a fundamental necessity for a lawful society is the abiding and enforcement of law. The first priority for addressing this issue would not be rounding up the criminals, the first priority would be to stop subsidizing them and penalizing the organizations that do. Dry up the pot of gold and they will go looking for another pot. Once, the bulk return to their countries of origin because they are no longer rewarded for their illegal actions, then you round up the remaining folks as they are caught committing the other crimes they engage in.
He cited no impeachable offense.
He has no idea how to round them up. As far as impeaching President Bush, like was said above, there is no impeachable offense. Our time and energy could be better put to preparing for the next administration by working to elect a person with some morals, and someone who knows how to lead. Bush has 17 months left in office. That is the blink of an eye in time. He has very little support in congress or with the people. Why bring up impeachment. He is the lame duck of lame ducks. Besides, do you really want Cheney President? Leave the man alone to his fate.
The author's argument for impeachable offenses were included in the article...
The author's arguments, from an impeachment standpoint, just don't hold water.
If they did, most of the elected officials in Washington, would be impeachable.
Most of them are.
Not according to the Constitution and the facts.
The author's emotional presentation won't make it so.
Are you suggesting that our leaders have acted to repel this foreign invasion?
I stated that the author's emotional appeal will not and cannot manufacture impeachment level offenses where they don't exist.
Any "suggestions" you draw from that are your own.
I'm not asking you an emotional question. The author alleges that it is the responsibility of the commander in chief to defend the United States from foreign invasion and you accuse him of emotionalism. Your lack of response and inattention to the allegations suggests that it is not he that is emotional.
The constitution suggests that congress has the power to collect taxes and one of the purposes for this is to defend against foreign invasion. The commander-in-chief would be the responsible party for the defense of this country. Thus...
Has the commander-in-chief or congress defended the U.S. from the illegal invasion of 10-20 million people from a foreign country or have they actually encouraged this invasion?
If they have repelled the invasion then how did all those folks get in and why are they still here?
If they have encouraged the invasion then why isn't this an impeachable offense, when it is their duty to repel such invasions?
The author cited no impeachable offenses.
How much clearer does it have to be?
Obviously you disagree. So be it.