Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Obama be impeached?

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In his meeting with Senator Kyl, Obama said the reason he is not enforcing border security is that he wants the bad consequences that result from his inaction to force "comprehensive immigration reform," which is the way he refers to amnesty for illegals. The bad consequences involve the death of American citizens. Reid and Pelosi have been saying the same thing, so it is no surprise.

The Arizona immigration law, which attempts to enforce some of the Federal laws which the government refuses to enforce, was a consequence of a rancher being killed by illegals. A neighboring rancher has had 500,000 illegals captured on his property in the past decade and his house broken into seven times; he is now afraid to leave his house unguarded for a minute. As a citizens, the rancher who was killed and the one under constant invasion have a right to be protected by the government.

Recently, the drug cartels, upset at having a large shipment of drugs, have vowed to assassinate border patrol agents. Obama has not responded. We may assume that he will accept increased casualties in order to pressure opponents of amnesty.

Existing laws are in place to provide border security, it is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives. The Presidential oath of office is ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Deliberate failure to enforce laws so that citizens die in furtherance of political aims is not preserving, potecting, and defending the Constitution. Because killing citizens is involved, it is a "high crime" justifying impeachment.

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:36:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would just like to say I have heard although I have yet to confirm it that Illegal Immigrants are boycotting and leaving Arizonia in protest to the law

does this strike anyone else as sad and funny at the same time?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 8:37:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:36:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I would just like to say I have heard although I have yet to confirm it that Illegal Immigrants are boycotting and leaving Arizonia in protest to the law

does this strike anyone else as sad and funny at the same time?

I think that that's great. The bill works, apparently. Now we just have to get them out of Texas, New Mexico, and California in a similar fashion, and we can force them either north to Canada or back south to Mexico.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:43:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
CONS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It makes our country look weaker in the eyes of the world
It starts another blame game mess
It costs money
...

PROS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It gets him out of there

Hurrah for impeachment!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:46:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 9:43:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
CONS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It makes our country look weaker in the eyes of the world
It starts another blame game mess
It costs money
...

PROS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It gets him out of there

Hurrah for impeachment!

Precisely my sentiments on the "Pro."
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:48:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In his meeting with Senator Kyl, Obama said the reason he is not enforcing border security is that he wants the bad consequences that result from his inaction to force "comprehensive immigration reform," which is the way he refers to amnesty for illegals. The bad consequences involve the death of American citizens. Reid and Pelosi have been saying the same thing, so it is no surprise.

The Arizona immigration law, which attempts to enforce some of the Federal laws which the government refuses to enforce, was a consequence of a rancher being killed by illegals. A neighboring rancher has had 500,000 illegals captured on his property in the past decade and his house broken into seven times; he is now afraid to leave his house unguarded for a minute. As a citizens, the rancher who was killed and the one under constant invasion have a right to be protected by the government.

Recently, the drug cartels, upset at having a large shipment of drugs, have vowed to assassinate border patrol agents. Obama has not responded. We may assume that he will accept increased casualties in order to pressure opponents of amnesty.

Existing laws are in place to provide border security, it is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives. The Presidential oath of office is ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Deliberate failure to enforce laws so that citizens die in furtherance of political aims is not preserving, potecting, and defending the Constitution. Because killing citizens is involved, it is a "high crime" justifying impeachment.

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Absolutely ridiculous. You forgot to mention that Obama is killing male and female troops globally on a daily basis.

It just really gets to me that he'd prefer his own agenda over the troubles of American citizens. It has been a tradition among presidents, but we need to stop the line somewhere.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:49:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Eliminating the incentives to illegally cross the border will do much more than putting up a fence. If the illegals can't get welfare, medicare, medicaid, public schooling, etc. then a lot of them probably wouldn't want to risk the illegal crossing of the border. Legalizing drugs would eliminate a lot of the violence, shootings, and kidnappings along the border.

I guess I'll just wait for 2013 to get Obama out of office, because impeachment will most likely cause rioting. I don't want rioting.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:52:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 9:43:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
CONS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It makes our country look weaker in the eyes of the world

Most of the world either hates us or looks down on us. I say f*ck the rest of the nations for now. We need to go back to noninterventionism and withdrawal of the military. This would certainly help our standing with the rest of the world. There will obviously be initial problems with some conflicts that may occur in certain scattered areas, but the world will recognize that instead of a tight military domination, the US prefers to relax its grip and allow the citizens of these nations to take things how they would like. We have the scientific knowledge and intuition to create a missile defense system or some type of method of protection without the necessity of troops. If we heavily reduce our budget on the military, we can then have the monetary source to fund it. This won't be popular among many of you, but what can I say, I don't like our military intervention.

It starts another blame game mess
It costs money
...

PROS TO IMPEACHMENT:
It gets him out of there

Hurrah for impeachment!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:54:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 9:52:10 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Who becomes president upon impeachment? Biden? Oh no.

And we get Madame Pelosi if Biden croaks.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 9:57:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 9:54:45 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/24/2010 9:52:10 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Who becomes president upon impeachment? Biden? Oh no.

And we get Madame Pelosi if Biden croaks.

Terrible. How can we have come to this?

Rhetorical question, btw. Just trying to show off how ridiculous this nation has come down to.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:00:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol, you guys are funny.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:03:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:00:24 PM, Freeman wrote:
Lol, you guys are funny.

This brings me back to Wilson in respects of hoping on the fringe of idealism ;)

I know how pro-Obama you are, so I'd be interested in reading you and Roy debating more about Obama or politics in general.

I tend to agree more with the libertarian-conservative view of Obama. I do vary in several aspects, but, you know, at the end of the day, I'm not much of an Obama fan.

I really want him to overturn the DADT policy!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:05:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In his meeting with Senator Kyl, Obama said the reason he is not enforcing border security is that he wants the bad consequences that result from his inaction to force "comprehensive immigration reform," which is the way he refers to amnesty for illegals. The bad consequences involve the death of American citizens. Reid and Pelosi have been saying the same thing, so it is no surprise.

The Arizona immigration law, which attempts to enforce some of the Federal laws which the government refuses to enforce, was a consequence of a rancher being killed by illegals. A neighboring rancher has had 500,000 illegals captured on his property in the past decade and his house broken into seven times; he is now afraid to leave his house unguarded for a minute. As a citizens, the rancher who was killed and the one under constant invasion have a right to be protected by the government.

Recently, the drug cartels, upset at having a large shipment of drugs, have vowed to assassinate border patrol agents. Obama has not responded. We may assume that he will accept increased casualties in order to pressure opponents of amnesty.

Existing laws are in place to provide border security, it is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives. The Presidential oath of office is ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Deliberate failure to enforce laws so that citizens die in furtherance of political aims is not preserving, potecting, and defending the Constitution. Because killing citizens is involved, it is a "high crime" justifying impeachment.

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

We're talking about human beings here, not "illegals".
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:08:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Recently, the drug cartels, upset at having a large shipment of drugs, have vowed to assassinate border patrol agents.

Lol good. The increased competition on the market due to the influx of goods from Mexico will make my marijuana prices drop. JayKay.

Obama has not responded.

Don't feel bad - Obama has not responded to the HRC asking for equal rights either.

Existing laws are in place to provide border security, it is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives. The Presidential oath of office is ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Right. Cuz GWB clearly enforced the Constition lol. In short, if GWB wasn't impeached then it's far-fetched (and that's an understatement) to say Obama will be. I realize this thread is a hypothetical though. It seems that the only way Obama will be impeached is if he gets a BJ from an intern. Plus, as Nags and others have pointed out, Biden will take office and then if he goes it's Nancy... lol. Nobody wants that.
President of DDO
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:09:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:05:59 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In his meeting with Senator Kyl, Obama said the reason he is not enforcing border security is that he wants the bad consequences that result from his inaction to force "comprehensive immigration reform," which is the way he refers to amnesty for illegals. The bad consequences involve the death of American citizens. Reid and Pelosi have been saying the same thing, so it is no surprise.

The Arizona immigration law, which attempts to enforce some of the Federal laws which the government refuses to enforce, was a consequence of a rancher being killed by illegals. A neighboring rancher has had 500,000 illegals captured on his property in the past decade and his house broken into seven times; he is now afraid to leave his house unguarded for a minute. As a citizens, the rancher who was killed and the one under constant invasion have a right to be protected by the government.

Recently, the drug cartels, upset at having a large shipment of drugs, have vowed to assassinate border patrol agents. Obama has not responded. We may assume that he will accept increased casualties in order to pressure opponents of amnesty.

Existing laws are in place to provide border security, it is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives. The Presidential oath of office is ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Deliberate failure to enforce laws so that citizens die in furtherance of political aims is not preserving, potecting, and defending the Constitution. Because killing citizens is involved, it is a "high crime" justifying impeachment.

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

We're talking about human beings here, not "illegals".

Agreed.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:

I'm all for it if I can become her Monica Lewinsky ;)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:11:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. Hasty Generalization. Just because a few immigrants killed a rancher doesn't mean all immigrants are killer drug dealers. White people have killed and dealt drugs, so should we have a law against all white people too?

2. Obama is not enforcing the Federal Governments laws? Boo fvcking hoo! The less laws the more freedom! The better President is the one who does nothing.

3. Our country was founded by immigrants who came here WITHOUT having to go through the "legalization" process.

4. It's not the Mexican's fault they were born in Mexico. It has basically become a crime to be born in Mexico. People can't control where their born and when they're born in an unfortunate location, they travel to a better place. You can't blame 'em.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:13:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:11:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
1. Hasty Generalization. Just because a few immigrants killed a rancher doesn't mean all immigrants are killer drug dealers. White people have killed and dealt drugs, so should we have a law against all white people too?

2. Obama is not enforcing the Federal Governments laws? Boo fvcking hoo! The less laws the more freedom! The better President is the one who does nothing.

Couldn't agree more.

3. Our country was founded by immigrants who came here WITHOUT having to go through the "legalization" process.

Have you seen the political cartoon that depicts a Native American sitting at a stand that has a sign? The sign reads, "No Immigrants Allowed." The people in front of the stand are the Pilgrims. It's hilarious ;)

4. It's not the Mexican's fault they were born in Mexico. It has basically become a crime to be born in Mexico. People can't control where their born and when they're born in an unfortunate location, they travel to a better place. You can't blame 'em.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:14:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In his meeting with Senator Kyl, Obama said the reason he is not enforcing border security is that he wants the bad consequences that result from his inaction to force "comprehensive immigration reform" ... It is just that Obama refuses to enforce the laws to serve his personal political objectives.

Right -- Because Senator Kyl isn't trying to further HIS political objectives? It seems to me that he had absolutely no problem with border security under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II and is just NOW making this an issue to gain HIMSELF votes in November.

* In June 2007, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against three cloture motions on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. All three motions failed. [S.Amdt.1150 to S. 1348, Vote#203, 6/7/07; S.1348, Vote#204, 6/7/07; S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, Vote#206, 6/7/07]

* Sen. Kyl Voted Against Securing The Border And Enforcing Current Immigration Law. In 2007, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against an amendment submitted by Sen. Coburn (R-OK) that would "require the enforcement of existing border security and immigration laws and Congressional approval before amnesty can be granted." The amendment failed 54-42. [S.Amdt. 1311 to S.Amdt. 1150 to S. 1348, Vote#202, 6/7/07]

2006

* Sen. Kyl Voted Against The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act Of 2006. In 2006, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) voted against S. 2611, or the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006," which would "provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes." The bill passed by a vote of 62-36. [S. 2611, Vote#157, 5/25/06]

I'm shocked at this hypocrisy. I would have never expected it from a Republican!!!
President of DDO
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:19:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:10:56 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:

I'm all for it if I can become her Monica Lewinsky ;)

Ok, but I don't think that's anatomically possible. You would have to get with her husband, Tod.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:20:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:19:31 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:10:56 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:

I'm all for it if I can become her Monica Lewinsky ;)

Ok, but I don't think that's anatomically possible. You would have to get with her husband, Tod.

You knew what I meant. I figured I didn't have to spell it out for you.

I'd be in my office, she'd come in, shut the door, cover the windows, and take over from there. Get the picture?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:21:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago

I'm shocked at this hypocrisy. I would have never expected it from a Republican!!!

LMFAO. I love when people bring this up. Makes me laugh all the time. (No sarcasm, this really did crack me up, because it's true.)

You do also realize that the same could be said about Democrats?
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:22:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:20:24 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:19:31 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:10:56 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:

I'm all for it if I can become her Monica Lewinsky ;)

Ok, but I don't think that's anatomically possible. You would have to get with her husband, Tod.

You knew what I meant. I figured I didn't have to spell it out for you.

I'd be in my office, she'd come in, shut the door, cover the windows, and take over from there. Get the picture?

Yes, but I want to get the picture out of my head.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:22:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:21:24 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

I'm shocked at this hypocrisy. I would have never expected it from a Republican!!!

LMFAO. I love when people bring this up. Makes me laugh all the time. (No sarcasm, this really did crack me up, because it's true.)

You do also realize that the same could be said about Democrats?

lol She's not a democrat either.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:22:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And, well, the democrats aren't even half as bad :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:23:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:22:22 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:21:24 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

I'm shocked at this hypocrisy. I would have never expected it from a Republican!!!

LMFAO. I love when people bring this up. Makes me laugh all the time. (No sarcasm, this really did crack me up, because it's true.)

You do also realize that the same could be said about Democrats?

lol She's not a democrat either.

Lol, I understand. I just really don't like how it seems (at least in my area) that Republicans get made fun of much more than Democrats.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:24:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:22:13 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:20:24 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:19:31 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:10:56 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:09:54 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 6/24/2010 8:30:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

I'm curious how "give me want I want or you die" is justified by Obama supporters. Do tell.

Let's kick Obama out and put this lady in office:

I'm all for it if I can become her Monica Lewinsky ;)

Ok, but I don't think that's anatomically possible. You would have to get with her husband, Tod.

You knew what I meant. I figured I didn't have to spell it out for you.

I'd be in my office, she'd come in, shut the door, cover the windows, and take over from there. Get the picture?

Yes, but I want to get the picture stuck in my head.

That's a little creepy, no?
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2010 10:25:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/24/2010 10:23:26 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:22:22 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 6/24/2010 10:21:24 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:

I'm shocked at this hypocrisy. I would have never expected it from a Republican!!!

LMFAO. I love when people bring this up. Makes me laugh all the time. (No sarcasm, this really did crack me up, because it's true.)

You do also realize that the same could be said about Democrats?

lol She's not a democrat either.

Lol, I understand. I just really don't like how it seems (at least in my area) that Republicans get made fun of much more than Democrats.

It's because Republicans are far worse than Democrats. Democrats are pretty friggin bad, but Republicans are, how goes the saying.... the "greater of the two evils."
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.