Thread: Lou Dobbs: No Impeachment

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

Originally Posted by cassie

And what has Hillary to do with the constitution ?

You got this one right.

I'm just wondering why s/he ( amendmis or something ) came with the constitution in the first place. The president has nothing to do with the constitution, he or she can't change it without Congress. I remember a Clinton speech. He was talking about the Clinton era, and what the president over 100 years would think of it. Clinton referred to that president as a he or a SHE, and I think he'll see it in his own life time that we have a female president. I know it's hard for hardcore neocons, but they have to get used to it. We women are not stupid and just as capable as men to run the country

Yeah. Sis is like that. She thinks the President should uphold the Constitution, maybe even defend it. She's just not ever going to get along with socialists and Communists. I'd say we can give that up.

Cassie, you say you changed your mind on illegal immigration because you've seen so much poverty outside of the country. Do you think that the US has the capacity to take in the majority of poor people all over the world? What do you think will happen to this country if we do not regulate the amount of people who come in here? Who will pay for all of the social programs when the middle class is obliterated through the depression of wages? What about the strain on our natural resources?

The answer to poverty is not to import the world's poor into the US; it is for the governments of these people to provide opportunities for their own people in their own countries. They must clean up the corruption which permeates all levels of their societies and implement efficient and sound economic policies.

If we follow the course of action you seem to prefer, we will become a poverty stricken third world country ourselves in a matter of decades which will benefit no one.

I'm just wondering why s/he ( amendmis or something ) came with the constitution in the first place. The president has nothing to do with the constitution, he or she can't change it without Congress.

Oh my
CASSIE, are you saying that we should CHANGE the CONSTITUTION?

Do you know what the CONSTITUTION actually is?

Do you know what the president, congress and the judiciary are supposed to do with the CONSITITUTION?

Hey! I have an idea............how about we just dump that ole CONSITUTION and let the free for all begin?

China anyone?

Cassie,
Here's how I can say Hillary is in it for herself. Here's some reading for you. After you've read these articles, how can you not come to the conclusion that hillary is out to further her political career by any means necessary, whether it be ethical or not.

Hillary is not an ethical or moral person and does not belong in the white house, she belongs in the dog house.
Also, read this latest thread about how she treats her own security detail. If I were on her detail, I certainly wouldn't take a bullet for her.

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=52531

http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/swi ... 132006.htm

loservillelabor

Yeah. Sis is like that. She thinks the President should uphold the Constitution, maybe even defend it. She's just not ever going to get along with socialists and Communists. I'd say we can give that up.

Of course the president should uphold the constitution, but all presidents will do that. I’m not a socialist or communist, I’m just saying that people come here to support their families, that’s all

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

noyoucannot wrote:

Cassie, you say you changed your mind on illegal immigration because you've seen so much poverty outside of the country. Do you think that the US has the capacity to take in the majority of poor people all over the world? What do you think will happen to this country if we do not regulate the amount of people who come in here? Who will pay for all of the social programs when the middle class is obliterated through the depression of wages? What about the strain on our natural resources?

I know you’re right my friend, and I don’t know the answers to your questions But I’m a mother who will do anything necessary to take care of her kids. The same thing with those illegal aliens, all they do is just try to get some money through hard labor to feed their kids. They have mouths to feed.

The answer to poverty is not to import the world's poor into the US; it is for the governments of these people to provide opportunities for their own people in their own countries. They must clean up the corruption which permeates all levels of their societies and implement efficient and sound economic policies.

And why are we bombing poor countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. We create even more poverty by our actions. We’ve treated Latin America as our backyard, and now we feel the backlash of it. We supported dictators who oppressed its people. I feel guilty for the poor.

2ndamendsis wrote:

Oh my
CASSIE, are you saying that we should CHANGE the CONSTITUTION?

Not really, I just wanted to point out that it was unnecessary to mention the constitution while we were debating Hillary

Do you know what the CONSTITUTION actually is?

Yes, but if you don’t you can google for it

Do you know what the president, congress and the judiciary are supposed to do with the CONSITITUTION?

Uphold the constitution

Sippy wrote:

Cassie,
Here's how I can say Hillary is in it for herself. Here's some reading for you. After you've read these articles, how can you not come to the conclusion that hillary is out to further her political career by any means necessary, whether it be ethical or not. Hillary is not an ethical or moral person and does not belong in the white house, she belongs in the dog house. Also, read this latest thread about how she treats her own security detail. If I were on her detail, I certainly wouldn't take a bullet for her.

Not even one single person in the world hasn’t made mistakes in the past. Hillary is not perfect and I never claimed that, I referred to Hillary as the least of all evils. And she can always ask for advice from Bill. Bill was a good president and I’m confident he’ll lead Hillary and advice her to make the right decisions

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by cassie

CrocketsGhost wrote:

Cassie, the son of an illegal alien is not necessarily a citizen. Case law on this is anything but settled, and the legislative intent of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within Amendment XIV's citizenship clause was made clear in the debate surrounding the inclusion of that verbiage. The automatic citizenship was meant to apply only to those born to persons here lawfully and specifically subject to the jurisdiction. That means that neither the offspring of illegal entrants nor of foreign diplomats or visitors on US soil would gain automatic citizenship.

It’s not true what you say. I think you’re referring to the Wong Kim Ark trial and the court did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" But the supreme court decided that even kids of illegals are citizens

Please cite the Supreme Court case that determined that children of illegal aliens secure automatic citizenship under Amendment XIV.

However, the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

This implies that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

Cassie,
You're missing the point. I wasn't implying that we are perfect and hillary isn't. I was simply asking you to look at her "gray" past.
Actions speak louder than words, and hillary's actions speak loud and clear.
Sure she isn't perfect, but she doesn't try to do good either.
If you read the ALIPAC thread I placed on there you would have read that she treats her security detail poorly. She also didn't want her daughter to have anything to do with them either.
To me that states that she is very arrogant and thinks she's above everyone else.
Keep in mind these are the guys who are supposed to lay down their life to protect her. Don't you think they deserve more respect than that?
She is not the lesser of the evils, she is the one of the worst of all the evils.
Are you kidding? She can ask advice from Bill? Oh yeah, I forgot that Bill was such a model american. The only thing Bill did right for this country was help balance the budget.
If he was such a good president, then why was he IMPEACHED?

Oh my
CASSIE, are you saying that we should CHANGE the CONSTITUTION?

Not really, I just wanted to point out that it was unnecessary to mention the constitution while we were debating Hillary

Now I'm truly confused. Please help me to understand why it's UNNECESSARY to mention the Constitution while debating a presidential election?

What would be the very first thing that a president is to be concerned with while in the Oval Office? BJ's or ohhhhhhhh, say, the United States Constitution?

Quote:
Do you know what the CONSTITUTION actually is?

Yes, but if you don’t you can google for it

No need for me to take that time considering there is a copy of the United States Constitution on my desk, in my bedroom, in my living room and a small one in my briefcase. However, I certainly will pass on your suggestion to anyone who might need the help. As for me.........I've had that covered for quite a few years. How about you?

Quote:
Do you know what the president, congress and the judiciary are supposed to do with the CONSITITUTION?

Uphold the constitution

Really? And how would they be achieving that requirement?
If that's the case then wouldn't it be wise to 'bring it up' in a discussion concerning the presidential election before the election?

FYI: the US Constitution is to be 'capitalized' whenever written. Were you aware of that or is that a form of disrespect on your part?

.

Originally Posted by sippy

Cassie,
You're missing the point. I wasn't implying that we are perfect and hillary isn't. I was simply asking you to look at her "gray" past.
Actions speak louder than words, and hillary's actions speak loud and clear.

We'll see with who the GOP comes up with, and if we dig in his or HER pasto, we'll also find things that are wrong. I bet that you so loved Tancredo will also have a past that's far from perfect.

Sure she isn't perfect, but she doesn't try to do good either.
If you read the ALIPAC thread I placed on there you would have read that she treats her security detail poorly. She also didn't want her daughter to have anything to do with them either.
To me that states that she is very arrogant and thinks she's above everyone else. Keep in mind these are the guys who are supposed to lay down their life to protect her. Don't you think they deserve more respect than that?
She is not the lesser of the evils, she is the one of the worst of all the evils.

She's arrogant, but so are many other americans

Are you kidding? She can ask advice from Bill? Oh yeah, I forgot that Bill was such a model american. The only thing Bill did right for this country was help balance the budget.

no I'm not kidding. America was loved by our allies, and Bush crewed that up. Bill prevented North Korea for going nuclear, but Boosh screwed it up with his axis of evil speech. Bill was perhaps not a model American, but he getting a BJ is not a mistake compared to what Bush has done so far.

If he was such a good president, then why was he IMPEACHED?

President Clinton impeached, really ???
This is not true, he served his term. Just because some hardcore republicans wanted to impeach him because of some of his actions, doesn't deny the fact that 75% of Americans thought it was wrong to impeach him over a BJ.