They won't step down! It would take impeachment! I just don't see that happening. The other Republicans in Washington want to take over in '08' and even if they agreed with impeachment they would fight it for all it is worth so that they would have a better chance of being elected.
2007-06-12 01:29:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pamela V 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
When Pelosi took office she made speeches and shot off her mouth countless times. She is a hypocrite and a know-nothing. Now that she is in office what has she accomplished? Nothing! If she should ever become president of the USA for whatever the reason it would be the biggest disaster that the world has ever seen. Incidentally, I am neither a Republican or a Democrat so I do not have a political axe to grind.
2007-06-12 19:40:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush and Cheney may be lame ducks, but no more so then Nancy (I'm going the send laws to The White House to get vetoed) Pilosi.
2007-06-12 00:44:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Democrat culture of peace ??
Whats that ?
Roosevelt - WW ll
Truman - Korean War
Johnson - Vietnam War
Carter - trained the mujahadeen in afghanistan
Clinton
Serbia -- Bombed illegally
Sudan - Bombed illegally
Kosavo - invaded illegally
Haiti - invaded illegally
Afghanistan - bombed
Iraq - Bombed
Yep, lost of peace going around with them Dems !!!!!!!!
2007-06-12 01:30:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Republicans still think that if the blue collar workers make their rich employers richer, the rich employers will increase pay to the workers. NEVER HAPPENED... every single blue collar pay raise in every industry was forced out of the greedy hands of every single rich employer. Unions are a neccessity if America wants to prosper. ALL Republicans are anti-union / anti-prosperity, and anti-peace.
2007-06-12 11:05:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by profit_workaholic 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
that's quiet... TOO quiet... i do no longer understand, yet this is something to think of approximately. verify the two hyperlinks under. the 1st says we could continuously be utilizing our surplus of militia rigidity to enforce our will on different international locations. the 2nd says we could strengthen our militia rigidity because of fact it is not adequate to do what we are asking of it. magnificent, sure? A. 1997: "We objective to make the case and rally help for American worldwide management. because of fact the 20 th century attracts to another, united states of america of america stands because of fact the international's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the chilly conflict, united states of america of america faces an threat and a project: Does united states of america of america have the inventive and prescient to construct upon the achievements of previous many years? Does united states of america of america have the % to shape a clean century favorable to American concepts and pursuits?" B. 2005: "united states of america of america militia is in basic terms too small for the household initiatives we are asking it to anticipate."
2016-10-09 01:12:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
you Dems is all alike. SURE you'll take Washington in 2008 but the stock market will crash from everything you do.
War is Peace, use to it or lose everything!!!!!!!
2007-06-12 10:58:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cheney 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here we go again,
If America spent as much time trying to resolve issues instead of slamming each other...We might actually get things done.....
2007-06-12 00:33:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by snickers 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Sounds like a very good idea as long as the dictators controlled Pelosi....
2007-06-12 00:21:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
lol maybe if you want terrorist as your allies look at who she talks to your just in your own little world dont believe what a lib tells you it may be to good to be true enough for them to handle.
2007-06-12 00:25:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jeremy P 2
·
2⤊
1⤋