I know alot of people joke about moving to Canada, but is anyone serious?

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Just wanted to know. Canada issued a statement saying they will not allow anyone who wants to move there to just walk across the border unless they have a valid reason (ie. to get a student visa all you need to do is present them a letter from the school at the border and they hand you your visa, takes all of 10 minutes, I think it is just as easy to get a work visa), they would have to wait possibly a year or more, just like anyone else. Though, I think I pay particular attention to these comments because I have already done this, though definately not for the same reasons (and it may be temporary, I haven't decided what to do after university). To those who want to because bush won, that seems rather childish to me. It still doesn't solve the problem. Bush still won, he will still be president, and by moving you are taking away a voice of opposition, and a person who would vote against people like him in upcoming elections. I'm not saying there aren't real reasons, if you're gay then you have an entirely legitimate reason for moving (well, those in massachusetts have less of a reason, though the stability of gay marriage there is in question). Moving to canada (or any country) because you like a particular area (ie. I go to university in toronto because I like the city, one of the main reasons is because it is the worlds most multicultural city) is another good reason. I'm not saying it isn't a plus to have a government that is more in line with your thinking (and I will admit I did think about this before deciding to move, but it wasn't what I based my decision on), and a society that you feel better represents your thinking, but liberals leaving the u.s. just makes it worse for other liberals in the u.s.
 
Actually I have been considering moving to Japan, maybe within the next 8-10 years.

Moving out of the United States is expensive because the USD is very weak.

But if there was a major protest movement in the near future, like maybe an anti-draft thing, I would move to Canada temportarily.
 
[quote name='bignick']Let people move to canada. It just shows what babies they really are.[/quote]

Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.
 
Draft I can see, I've said for year if there was ever a draft I'd move to canada, and if there was one now I'd renounce my citizenship to avoid any chance of having to go to war.

Though ya, the u.s. dollar is doing horrible. I just converted 6000 u.s. to canadian dollars in my bank (did it online) when I found out bush won. The dollar is going to keep dropping. Yesterday the canadian dollar was worth .805 american dollars, today it's at .82. 1.5 cents in one day is huge. Most economists are predicting it will hit 85 cents in a few months, with many respected economists predicting it was be equal with the u.s. dollar in the next year. I have heard little opposition to that view, and see little reason why their should be. Basically, I want nothing to do with u.s. currency, since I regularly use other currencies (mainly the canadian dollar, but also the u.k. pound and the euro) the amount of money I had was shrinking almost daily.

I'd love to visit japan. Well, the three places I'd love to visit are Iran, palestine and north korea. Iran is too dangerous and the reward isn't high enough. Palestine I'd do, since the militants don't harm, and usually welcome foreigners since they know it benefits their cause, the Israeli army is the biggest threat to foreigners (going by the body count of dead foreigners). I'd also love to see a speach by arafat, if he survives, (not that I could understand it), just to be able to say I saw him. It's the most dangerous of the four, but it has the highest reward. North korea I'd love to see as well, but I can't since they allow everyone BUT americans to visit. Also, I'd love to see a castro speech in cuba (these speaches are more to say I saw them, and to have that memory, I don't want to see them because of admiration or anything), but I have no interest in anything else in cuba. Japan is my first choice for normal countries, I'd love to see the cherry blossoms (my university planted a bunch of cherry trees last year, but there aren't nearly as many and it just isn't even close to the same). Vietnam would be great to, especially if one of my friends went (he's vietnamese and can speak it fluently, though he can't read it, at least I could get by and have a better understanding of what's going on). I think I'm rambling on too much.
 
Quak I'd like to know how you intend to move to japan, it is notoriously difficult for a foreigner to move there (you basically have no shot at ever getting a citizenship there), and unless you went their for love or something I don't know how you'd do it and be satisfied with the result.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

That's right, we have no representation here in the bad-old-USA, especially because Bush is president for 4 more years. Yet again you give definition to the "QUACK" in Quackzilla.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Quak I'd like to know how you intend to move to japan, it is notoriously difficult for a foreigner to move there (you basically have no shot at ever getting a citizenship there), and unless you went their for love or something I don't know how you'd do it and be satisfied with the result.[/quote]

If he gets a degree, and wants to teach English there, he could have a chance.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

That's right, we have no representation here in the bad-old-USA, especially because Bush is president for 4 more years. Yet again you give definition to the "QUACK" in Quackzilla.[/quote]

watch out!!! he is behind you!!!


The end of the world is not going to come because Bush is president, and moving to Japan and Canada is not going to solve anything. good luck trying to find a job in Japan, because you are really going to need it
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

Then just move and stop fantasizing about it like its some huge threat thats going to affect the US in some noticable way.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

That's right, we have no representation here in the bad-old-USA, especially because Bush is president for 4 more years. Yet again you give definition to the "QUACK" in Quackzilla.[/quote]

Democrats really aren't represented, at least relative to their size. 48% of people voted for kerry, yet republicans control the senate, house, the presidency and, soon, the supreme court. To most democrats it does feel like we aren't represented, the opposing view controls (or soon will control) every branch of government.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Democrats really aren't represented, at least relative to their size. 48% of people voted for kerry, yet republicans control the senate, house, the presidency and, soon, the supreme court. To most democrats it does feel like we aren't represented, the opposing view controls (or soon will control) every branch of government.[/quote]

That's because unfortunately your party is not the moderate party it used to be and has moved so far to the extreme left that the average undecided voter cannot identify with it, and is even repulsed by it in some cases. Write to your party leaders and tell them you want a more moderate party that does not base their platform on the wacko Michael Moore, George Soros, moveon.org extreme liberal platforms, hate, distortions, and conspiracy theories, and you will have a much better chance of winning the next election and getting back some of those house/senate seats.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

That's right, we have no representation here in the bad-old-USA, especially because Bush is president for 4 more years. Yet again you give definition to the "QUACK" in Quackzilla.[/quote]

Democrats really aren't represented, at least relative to their size. 48% of people voted for kerry, yet republicans control the senate, house, the presidency and, soon, the supreme court. To most democrats it does feel like we aren't represented, the opposing view controls (or soon will control) every branch of government.[/quote]

So, majority rule is okay as long as it's controlled by Democrats, but it's called "under-representation" when controlled by Republicans. That's quite a standard you've set for yourself there. Last time I checked, everyone in their respective precinct, district, county and state got a chance to vote for their representatives on Tuesday.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Democrats really aren't represented, at least relative to their size. 48% of people voted for kerry, yet republicans control the senate, house, the presidency and, soon, the supreme court. To most democrats it does feel like we aren't represented, the opposing view controls (or soon will control) every branch of government.[/quote]

That's because unfortunately your party is not the moderate party it used to be and has moved so far to the extreme left that the average voter cannot identify with it. Write to your party leaders and tell them you want a more moderate party that does not base their platform on the wacko Michael Moore, George Soros, moveon.org extreme liberal platforms and you will have a better chance of winning the next election.[/quote]

The democrats are becoming more conservative. The country is becoming more conservative and moving away from the democrats, the democrats aren't moving away from the country. Though it's tough, you can become more and more moderate but eventually there's a breaking point. You know you have to be more moderate, and sometimes conservative, to win in the u.s., but there's a point that many will not cross. Gay rights, keeping religion out of government and abortion are some of those issues. And even if you swallowed your pride and publicly opposed those things, most would see through it and not believe you.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Quackzilla']Not really, it just shows that people want to have some sort of representation in their government, something that Canada offfers but the US doesn't.[/quote]

That's right, we have no representation here in the bad-old-USA, especially because Bush is president for 4 more years. Yet again you give definition to the "QUACK" in Quackzilla.[/quote]

Democrats really aren't represented, at least relative to their size. 48% of people voted for kerry, yet republicans control the senate, house, the presidency and, soon, the supreme court. To most democrats it does feel like we aren't represented, the opposing view controls (or soon will control) every branch of government.[/quote]

So, majority rule is okay as long as it's controlled by Democrats, but it's called "under-representation" when controlled by Republicans. That's quite a standard you've set for yourself there. Last time I checked, everyone in their respective precinct, district, county and state got a chance to vote for their representatives on Tuesday.[/quote]

When democrats control every branch of the government then I would completely understand republicans feeling as if they have little true representation. Obviously I wouldn't really care (as you don't care now), but this isn't a case of just simply majority rule, it is utter domination at the moment.
And, again, when 48% of the population supports one party, but yet controls 1 out of 4 (and due to that, soon to be 0 out of 4) branches of government that is underrepresentation. Again, I fully understand you not caring (as I wouldn't if the democrats controlled all 4 branches), it is undeniable that democrats have far less than 48% control of the government. The supreme court is the thing that really kills me though, that can't be changed every 2 or 4 years. That 1 is more important to me than the other 3.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The democrats are becoming more conservative. The country is becoming more conservative and moving away from the democrats, the democrats aren't moving away from the country. Though it's tough, you can become more and more moderate but eventually there's a breaking point. You know you have to be more moderate, and sometimes conservative, to win in the u.s., but there's a point that many will not cross. Gay rights, keeping religion out of government and abortion are some of those issues. And even if you swallowed your pride and publicly opposed those things, most would see through it and not believe you.[/quote]

Nah, I think the democrats are definitely now embracing the liberal left unlike in the past. It is no longer the party of the JFKs and Zell Millers. It's now the party of the Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys out there. A party that actually adopted the left wing propagandist BS from F911. Clearly the dems have moved to the left at a time when the country is leaning right. Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the senate and was from Mass, and the dems picked the most left senator as their man for president. They need to get their act together and get back into the mainstream.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='alonzomourning23']The democrats are becoming more conservative. The country is becoming more conservative and moving away from the democrats, the democrats aren't moving away from the country. Though it's tough, you can become more and more moderate but eventually there's a breaking point. You know you have to be more moderate, and sometimes conservative, to win in the u.s., but there's a point that many will not cross. Gay rights, keeping religion out of government and abortion are some of those issues. And even if you swallowed your pride and publicly opposed those things, most would see through it and not believe you.[/quote]

Nah, I think the democrats are definitely now embracing the liberal left unlike in the past. It is no longer the party of the JFKs and Zell Millers. It's now the party of the Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys out there. A party that actually adopted the left wing propagandist BS from F911. Clearly the dems have moved to the left at a time when the country is leaning right. Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the senate and was from Mass, and the dems picked the most left senator as their man for president. They need to get their act together and get back into the mainstream.[/quote]

I can see your argument, though I don't agree with it (they are moving away from my views, which are very liberal). Though kerry isn't as liberal as his title of "most liberal senator" would suggest. Over his career he is actually the 11th most liberal senator. Some studies place him even lower, 21st and 24th, respectively. He barely even qualified for the "most liberal" rating though. Here is what factcheck.org has to say:

The Journal did rank Kerry the most liberal senator for 2003, but it's also true that Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes on which the ranking was based due to his campaign schedule. So the Journal assigned Kerry a score only on economic policy for that year -- "a perfect liberal score," in fact. That was based on 19 Kerry votes, though he still missed 13 others on economic policy. The Journal didn't rank Kerry's votes on social issues or foreign policy for 2003 because he cast so few votes on those issues, but noted that he "consistently took the liberal view within the Senate" when he did vote on those issues.

To call Kerry the "most liberal man in the Senate" based on a single year's rating is simply incorrect, however. Over his entire career, the Journal rates Kerry the 11th most liberal Senator. It's doubtful that Kerry would have qualified for the "most liberal" label even during his first Senate term, when was rated #1 for three of the six years: 1986, 1988, and 1990. In each of those years Kerry actually tied for the "most liberal" rating, sharing it with as many as five other senators.

Or is he 22nd? Or 478th?

Other analyses put Kerry farther down the list of liberals. Political science professor Keith T. Poole analyzed 379 roll call votes from 2003 (essentially all votes except those that were unanimous or nearly so). Poole rated 21 senators more liberal, and had Kerry tied with six others for the next place. Based on that, Kerry tied for number 24-1/2.

Poole has been using his method for years. In an analysis of House and Senate voting from 1937-2002, Kerry ranked 478th most liberal out of 3,320 persons who have served in Congress during that time.

Poole concluded that Kerry is "a bit" more liberal than the typical Democratic House or Senate member over the past seven decades, but not an "extreme" liberal.


http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html
 
I never thought about moving to Canada but its actually not a bad idea at all!

Or maybe Europe, I've always wanted to go.

I don't think it's an idea to be hated on, what's wrong with determining that you don't like what your country stands for and leaving. What, just because someone's born here, they have to agree?
 
[quote name='camoor']I never thought about moving to Canada but its actually not a bad idea at all!

Or maybe Europe, I've always wanted to go.

I don't think it's an idea to be hated on, what's wrong with determining that you don't like what your country stands for and leaving. What, just because someone's born here, they have to agree?[/quote]

I say go for it if you want to. :)
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']...When democrats control every branch of the government then I would completely understand republicans feeling as if they have little true representation. Obviously I wouldn't really care (as you don't care now), but this isn't a case of just simply majority rule, it is utter domination at the moment.
And, again, when 48% of the population supports one party, but yet controls 1 out of 4 (and due to that, soon to be 0 out of 4) branches of government that is underrepresentation...[/quote]

Your argument that because 48% of the electorate voted for the democratic presidential candidate, they should control 48% of the government is completely illogical.

First, voting democratic for president does not mean they voted for Democrat representatives in their districts. Second, just because Democrats don't have a majority does not negate YOUR representation. They don't just go home and give up simply because they don't control the majority anymore. There is still debate, and voting on bills doesn't always fall within party lines.

There are over 500 representatives in the house and senate, Their proportions fairly accurately reflect your 48%/ 51% theory of representation. The people voted, the people elected. It is not "utter domination," as you suggest.
 
[quote name='camoor']I never thought about moving to Canada but its actually not a bad idea at all!

Or maybe Europe, I've always wanted to go.

I don't think it's an idea to be hated on, what's wrong with determining that you don't like what your country stands for and leaving. What, just because someone's born here, they have to agree?[/quote]

It's not wrong, it's one thing if you find you're country is a hopeless cause, that you have no shot and things will only get worse with no hope for improvement. That's not the case here. The republicans were once defeated and look at them now. Just look at talk radio. They are extensive enough to smash any democrat lie, exageration, hell even truth, yet the democrats have nothing to contest even the most blatant lie. This isn't over, to suggest the democrats have suffered anything more than a temporary defeat means ignoring the entire history of america. It may be 4 years, 8 years, hell it could be 20 years, the longer it takes the more time we have to build what the republicans have built. Hopefully we don't need the monstrosity that is people like rush limbaugh and anne coulter, but if that's the only way we can win then so be it. If you want to run away when things begin to look bleak you are only harming your own causes, beliefs and values while at the same time proving yourself to be weak and shortsighted.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']...When democrats control every branch of the government then I would completely understand republicans feeling as if they have little true representation. Obviously I wouldn't really care (as you don't care now), but this isn't a case of just simply majority rule, it is utter domination at the moment.
And, again, when 48% of the population supports one party, but yet controls 1 out of 4 (and due to that, soon to be 0 out of 4) branches of government that is underrepresentation...[/quote]

Your argument that because 48% of the electorate voted for the democratic presidential candidate, they should control 48% of the government is completely illogical.

First, voting democratic for president does not mean they voted for Democrat representatives in their districts. Second, just because Democrats don't have a majority does not negate YOUR representation. They don't just go home and give up simply because they don't control the majority anymore. There is still debate, and voting on bills doesn't always fall within party lines.

There are over 500 representatives in the house and senate, Their proportions fairly accurately reflect your 48%/ 51% theory of representation. The people voted, the people elected. It is not "utter domination," as you suggest.[/quote]

I did not suggest that they should have 48% representation, at least the way our system is set up (though personally I prefer a parliamentary system which allows for more accurate representation, and isn't a winner take all system). I just stated what I feel is the obvious, when 48% of the population fails to control any of the 4 branches of government they are underrepresented. That's not saying that something should be done, it's just an assesment of the current situation. It is becoming increasingly easy for republicans to pass any law they choose (barring constitutional amendments).
 
[quote name='Ruined']Nah, I think the democrats are definitely now embracing the liberal left unlike in the past. It is no longer the party of the JFKs and Zell Millers. It's now the party of the Ted Kennedys and John Kerrys out there. A party that actually adopted the left wing propagandist BS from F911. Clearly the dems have moved to the left at a time when the country is leaning right. Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the senate and was from Mass, and the dems picked the most left senator as their man for president. They need to get their act together and get back into the mainstream. [/quote]
Please stop with the typical Republican lies and bullshit, the election is over. Zell Miller just lost his seat to a Republican... Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Zell, maybe we'll get a real Democrat in there next time.

See, this is what the Republicans do. They take the liberal extreme (Moore) and associate that with the mainstream Democrats, to make it seem like most Democrats are like him. Moore is just another big fat idiot like Limbaugh. Are the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world mainstream Republicans? Of course not. We (Democrats) would be better served by making it look like they are, as the Republicans have with Moore, but it still wouldn't be true.

There is a split growing within the Republican party even now, between the hardcore right wingers and the moderates, over the deficit/not being fiscally conservative, and foreign policy. The best thing that can happen for the Democrats is for the ultra-conservative right wing to take over the party.

[quote name='bmulligan']First, voting democratic for president does not mean they voted for Democrat representatives in their districts. Second, just because Democrats don't have a majority does not negate YOUR representation. They don't just go home and give up simply because they don't control the majority anymore. There is still debate, and voting on bills doesn't always fall within party lines. [/quote]
This is true for the most part, but the issue of Gerrymandering by the Republicans jeopardizes the true representation of the people. Yes, both parties have done it, but this is the worst case of it in this generation, and maybe ever. The Iowa model of districting is probably the ideal way to do things.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='camoor']I never thought about moving to Canada but its actually not a bad idea at all!

Or maybe Europe, I've always wanted to go.

I don't think it's an idea to be hated on, what's wrong with determining that you don't like what your country stands for and leaving. What, just because someone's born here, they have to agree?[/quote]

It's not wrong, it's one thing if you find you're country is a hopeless cause, that you have no shot and things will only get worse with no hope for improvement. That's not the case here. The republicans were once defeated and look at them now. Just look at talk radio. They are extensive enough to smash any democrat lie, exageration, hell even truth, yet the democrats have nothing to contest even the most blatant lie. This isn't over, to suggest the democrats have suffered anything more than a temporary defeat means ignoring the entire history of america. It may be 4 years, 8 years, hell it could be 20 years, the longer it takes the more time we have to build what the republicans have built. Hopefully we don't need the monstrosity that is people like rush limbaugh and anne coulter, but if that's the only way we can win then so be it. If you want to run away when things begin to look bleak you are only harming your own causes, beliefs and values while at the same time proving yourself to be weak and shortsighted.[/quote]


Nice, I like how you start conciliatory and end with a denouncement, its a neat little trick.

Who cares. I probably won't leave because it's too much trouble, but I can see jetting because who wants to stick around when the conservative whackos with their guns and their bibles and their cheap slogans aren't going anywhere.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']See, this is what the Republicans do. They take the liberal extreme (Moore) and associate that with the mainstream Democrats, to make it seem like most Democrats are like him. Moore is just another big fat idiot like Limbaugh. Are the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world mainstream Republicans? Of course not. We (Democrats) would be better served by making it look like they are, as the Republicans have with Moore, but it still wouldn't be true.[/quote]

Wake up call, Michael Moore was warmly welcomed at the DNC, sitting in Jimmy Carter's box no less. And the DNC/Kerry campaign began adopting his propaganda on the campaign trail in the later portions of the Kerry campaign. No need for republicans to associate moore with the democrats, the dems did a fine job of doing that themselves.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407280119.asp
 
[quote name='Dafoomie']This is true for the most part, but the issue of Gerrymandering by the Republicans jeopardizes the true representation of the people. Yes, both parties have done it, but this is the worst case of it in this generation, and maybe ever. The Iowa model of districting is probably the ideal way to do things. [/quote]

yes, gerrymandering is done by both parties. But it is NOT the worst time in history for this practice. Research the origin of the term and you will see it's been done for centuries and it's practitioners were well versed in it's implementation before the term even originated. It's a myth that the political process is in it's worst state in history. How many times have you heard someone say we are more divided than ever during and after this campaign? We hear this time and time again with every election cycle. It's simply not the case. Politics has always been dirty and divisive in America.
 
You could always join the military to move. Japan has a couple of Air Force Bases that I hear are good assignments.
I used to be a Democrat but being in the military kind of turns you into a Republican. I do think that in 2008 if Hilary Clinton runs she will easily win the presidency because she would have the dem vote and probably a good portion of the Rep female vote. The only person I could see beating her is if Colin Powell changed his mind and ran in 2008
 
[quote name='jlarlee']You could always join the military to move. Japan has a couple of Air Force Bases that I hear are good assignments.
I used to be a Democrat but being in the military kind of turns you into a Republican. I do think that in 2008 if Hilary Clinton runs she will easily win the presidency because she would have the dem vote and probably a good portion of the Rep female vote. The only person I could see beating her is if Colin Powell changed his mind and ran in 2008[/quote]

I think McCain could beat Hillary, even moreso than Powell.
 
[quote name='camoor']


Nice, I like how you start conciliatory and end with a denouncement, its a neat little trick.

Who cares. I probably won't leave because it's too much trouble, but I can see jetting because who wants to stick around when the conservative whackos with their guns and their bibles and their cheap slogans aren't going anywhere.[/quote]

Heh, I became more aggravated as I was writing it, it's the sense of hopelessness that concerns me, that people will give up in a situation that they can turn around, but instead will make it worse in the long run. Though I meant what I said. I don't think it's wrong, I just think it's shortsighted. That stayed consistent throughout my post, I don't support it and I explained why. The situation isn't dire enough that leaving is warranted.

The way I see it is with an administration hostile to liberal causes (abortion, gay rights, environment etc.), we need to do everything to hold our ground in those areas, or at least to slow down the deterioration of those causes. We can't let conservatives stampede over the progress that has been made in those areas.
 
Wake up call, Michael Moore was at the DNC, sitting in Jimmy Carter's box no less. And the DNC/Kerry campaign began adopting his propaganda on the campaign trail in the later portions of the Kerry campaign. No need for republicans to associate more with the democrats, the dems did a fine job of doing that themselves.
Click to expand...
Moore was at the RNC too, does that make him a Republican?

This person was at the RNC, does that mean every Republican kicks women when they're being held down by police?
http://home.comcast.net/~dafoomie/rnc.mov

Ann Coulter was at the RNC, is she a mainstream Republican?

Please don't cite the Republican rag that is the National Review, its just bullshit. Give me specific examples of Moore's lies that Kerry's ads started using.
 
yes, gerrymandering is done by both parties. But it is NOT the worst time in history for this practice. Research the origin of the term and you will see it's been done for centuries and it's practitioners were well versed in it's implementation before the term even originated. It's a myth that the political process is in it's worst state in history. How many times have you heard someone say we are more divided than ever during and after this campaign? We hear this time and time again with every election cycle. It's simply not the case. Politics has always been dirty and divisive in America.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying its the worst time in history for it, I'm saying it was the worst single event of it in *recent* history. They tried it in Colorado, but their supreme court rejected it. This seriously jeopardizes the true representation of the people, and if the Republicans wanted to stop it, they could institute the Iowa model nationwide, since they now control everything.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Moore was at the RNC too, does that make him a Republican?[/quote]

Moore was a reporter for USA today at the RNC. At the DNC he was a guest and speaker. Tiny difference :)

This person was at the RNC, does that mean every Republican kicks women when they're being held down by police?
http://home.comcast.net/~dafoomie/rnc.mov
Click to expand...

rofl

Ann Coulter was at the RNC, is she a mainstream Republican?
Click to expand...

She is a mainstream conservative pundit.


Please don't cite the Republican rag that is the National Review, its just bullshit. Give me specific examples of Moore's lies that Kerry's ads started using.
Click to expand...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-elec06.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6029943/
 
"Ann Coulter was at the RNC, is she a mainstream Republican?


She is a mainstream conservative pundit. "

That comment should scare the hell out of any intelligent person. Though, thankfully, that's the first time I ever heard of anne coulter referred to as mainstream, and hopefully it will be the last.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='jlarlee']You could always join the military to move. Japan has a couple of Air Force Bases that I hear are good assignments.
I used to be a Democrat but being in the military kind of turns you into a Republican. I do think that in 2008 if Hilary Clinton runs she will easily win the presidency because she would have the dem vote and probably a good portion of the Rep female vote. The only person I could see beating her is if Colin Powell changed his mind and ran in 2008[/quote]

I think McCain could beat Hillary, even moreso than Powell.[/quote]

Powell would pull a lot of the african american voters who historically vote predominately Democrat. So he would cut into the oppisite parties votes like Hilary would. Plus Mccain had his chance he couldn't cut it.
 
Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='dafoomie']Moore was at the RNC too, does that make him a Republican?[/quote]

Please don't cite the Republican rag that is the National Review, its just bullshit. Give me specific examples of Moore's lies that Kerry's ads started using.
Click to expand...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-elec06.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6029943/[/quote]

The first article is about the 7 minutes. Guess what? HE DID wait 7 minutes. Thats not a lie.

The second one is about Cheney's conflict of interest with Halliburton. While Cheney's money from Halliburton is from his previous work there as CEO, there is a conflict of interest there. If Bill Gates were Vice President, and all the technical contracts in Iraq went to Microsoft, you wouldn't think there was a conflict of interest there? And I don't just mean buying Windows.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.[/quote]

He actually advised Bush not to go in and predicted a lot of the probelms we have been having. But when Bush made his mind up to go in.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The second one is about Cheney's conflict of interest with Halliburton. While Cheney's money from Halliburton is from his previous work there as CEO, there is a conflict of interest there. If Bill Gates were Vice President, and all the technical contracts in Iraq went to Microsoft, you wouldn't think there was a conflict of interest there? And I don't just mean buying Windows.[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point about the DNC and democrats adopting the extremist left Moore BS propaganda platform :)
 
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.[/quote]

He actually advised Bush not to go in and predicted a lot of the probelms we have been having. But when Bush made his mind up to go in.[/quote]

Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='dafoomie']The second one is about Cheney's conflict of interest with Halliburton. While Cheney's money from Halliburton is from his previous work there as CEO, there is a conflict of interest there. If Bill Gates were Vice President, and all the technical contracts in Iraq went to Microsoft, you wouldn't think there was a conflict of interest there? And I don't just mean buying Windows.[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point about the DNC and democrats adopting the extremist left Moore BS propaganda platform :)[/quote]

Yay its all fun isnt it.

Screw you seniors, no drugs for you, here you go drug cos - more free money!

Screw you enviornment - here you go corps more free money!

Screw you open source, open nation rebuilding contracts, here you go Haliburton, more free money!

And they say Bush isn't charitable enough. For shame.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I think McCain could beat Hillary, even moreso than Powell.[/quote]

Ronald Reagan could beat Hillary, despite having Alzheimer's and being dead.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.[/quote]

He actually advised Bush not to go in and predicted a lot of the probelms we have been having. But when Bush made his mind up to go in.[/quote]

Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

What did you expect him to do go toe-to-toe with the president? He wasn't going to win that battle. I think he played it about as good as he could have, he would get my vote in a second.
 
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='dafoomie']The second one is about Cheney's conflict of interest with Halliburton. While Cheney's money from Halliburton is from his previous work there as CEO, there is a conflict of interest there. If Bill Gates were Vice President, and all the technical contracts in Iraq went to Microsoft, you wouldn't think there was a conflict of interest there? And I don't just mean buying Windows.[/quote]

Thanks for proving my point about the DNC and democrats adopting the extremist left Moore BS propaganda platform :)[/quote]
Making a point about the conflict of interest between Cheney and Halliburton is not extremist bullshit. There is an investigation in progress, right now, looking into it, and how they got the no-bid contracts. You don't think its just a *little* fishy that the company that got billion dollar contracts, with no opportunity for any other company to bid on them, is the company that used to be run by the Vice President?
 
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.[/quote]

He actually advised Bush not to go in and predicted a lot of the probelms we have been having. But when Bush made his mind up to go in.[/quote]

Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

What did you expect him to do go toe-to-toe with the president? He wasn't going to win that battle. I think he played it about as good as he could have, he would get my vote in a second.[/quote]
Powell is leaving the cabinet by the end of the year, so is Rice, and possibly Rumsfeld. A lot of the cabinet is jumping ship... I wonder why.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

Yep, the Bush administration has utterly screwed Powell over. He had a realistic assesment of the Iraq situation going in, and as punishment for that, they've set him up to take the fall time and again. Any time there's a major military blunder and they need someone to defend the undefendable, guess who they trot out in front of the cameras?

The only way Powell would have a real chance at the presidency would be by turning on Bush and revealing his (Powell's) side of the story, and its highly unlikely he's ever going to do that. Quite simply, he has too much honor, and he's going to go down with the ship.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

Yep, the Bush administration has utterly screwed Powell over. He had a realistic assesment of the Iraq situation going in, and as punishment for that, they've set him up to take the fall time and again. Any time there's a major military blunder and they need someone to defend the undefendable, guess who they trot out in front of the cameras?

The only way Powell would have a real chance at the presidency would be by turning on Bush and revealing his (Powell's) side of the story, and its highly unlikely he's ever going to do that. Quite simply, he has too much honor, and he's going to go down with the ship.[/quote]

Hmm, I would have used another word other then honor.

As in "There were many Nazi generals that did not stand up to Hitler, because they had to much "
 
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Powell had a shot, but he seems to have caused significant damage to any chance he has at becoming president due to the last 4 years, though that's not to say it was his fault.[/quote]

He actually advised Bush not to go in and predicted a lot of the probelms we have been having. But when Bush made his mind up to go in.[/quote]

Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

What did you expect him to do go toe-to-toe with the president? He wasn't going to win that battle. I think he played it about as good as he could have, he would get my vote in a second.[/quote]

He was one of the people who got america behind the war. remember the u.n. speach. He should have stuck to his guns, Powel lost the battle with the neo conservatives, his influence has become less and less until now it is non existant. He could have kept his principles, since he obviously disagreed with the direction of the administration in many instances, but he didn't.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, that's one of the reasons. He was sidelined and humiliated by the administration. He sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears weak due to his current situation.[/quote]

Yep, the Bush administration has utterly screwed Powell over. He had a realistic assesment of the Iraq situation going in, and as punishment for that, they've set him up to take the fall time and again. Any time there's a major military blunder and they need someone to defend the undefendable, guess who they trot out in front of the cameras?

The only way Powell would have a real chance at the presidency would be by turning on Bush and revealing his (Powell's) side of the story, and its highly unlikely he's ever going to do that. Quite simply, he has too much honor, and he's going to go down with the ship.[/quote]

Hmm, I would have used another word other then honor.

As in "There were many Nazi generals that did not stand up to Hitler, because they had to much "[/quote]

Powell is a Good Soldier. Thats the term you're looking for. If he actually had the balls to stand up to Bush when he so completely disagreed with him, I might even support him. But no. Bush really, really screwed him.
 
Speaking of Powell his book is excellent and i don't usually care to read any nonfiction. My favorite picture is the one I took with him in Baghdad even though I look like a big doofus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top