Salty

iTrader: (14)

What a bunch of sore losers...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

Too bad Bush's term will be half way over when they get accepted...

SilverScoober02

Who are you talking about in that article? It says nothing of a single case of where a democrat was wanting to move to canada. The whole article is a huge "What if"

What if democrats that were fed up with Bush wanted to move to Canada? I just don't see the sore losers part of your post.

constellation

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, is it really that terrible to want to move out of the country if you don't agree with the way the country is heading? If i could get a job in australia i'd be there right now. Australians are completely different breed of jackass, and i love it.

SilverScoober02

LOL, plus I hear that Australian women LOVE american men! I'm in!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Just wait...

njc200

iTrader: (6)

Another thing about Australians: they had a 98% voter turnout for their election. Why? Because they fine people for not voting.

I would never work here, but I sort of like that idea.

Unregistered

Australians have the hotties!!!

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

Take note: this is the spin-zone

FUNKED1

This underlines the fact that we need to reduce the power of federal government. Local governments (State and County) should be the focus, not the feds. The feds should be handling national defense and bloody little else. If you didn't like the government in one state you could move to another, without leaving the USA.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with moving to Canada. It's a nice place. Just be prepared for intrusive government and declining standard of living.

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

I like that plan.

-Chris

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

I don't know if this would work... consider the following...

I think there is a reason why individual states can't (and shouldn't) govern themselves without at least some oversight by the Feds. If they were able to choose their own fate and were not under the finger of the federal govt., individual states would become yet more vastly different socially, ecomomically, and politically (not that they aren't different now). This would allow our nation to gradually grow apart. One main purpose of the federal govt is to create and maintain a sense of unity among the states, in addition to providing security and welfare (in the general sense of the term) to the nation as a whole. In addition, unless our federal tax system was changed to a more local level, it would be foolish to ask states to choose for themselves.

The benefits of having autonomous states are easy to see- that the voice of the people would be better reflected in the decisions made by the government. However, there are many potential drawbacks, which, though not plain to the eye, could cause major problems in the long term.

The key, as always, is balance. If we weren't so polarized as a nation (left/right), the current party in power might be more widely respected and supported. This would allow us to put more faith in the fed govt. But when the decisions made by the party in power are generally unpopular among nearly half the population, there are going to be individual states which strongly disagree, and therefore wish they had the power to make their own decisions for their own state.



This all speaks to why I believe Bush MUST make a honest, concerted effort to look at the other viewpoint and agree to make some concessions in order to gain the support of a greater percentage of the population, and thus prevent the country form continuing to grow apart. He's supposed to be leading the entire country, not just the people who agree with his views and decisions. He simply can't continue to ignore the opposite viewpoint.

jdepould

iTrader: (2)

we tried that whole states have more power thing, it didn't work.

soggynuts

go ahead move away democrats, just means we win!!

...and you are quitters

scoobsport98

iTrader: (5)

This is exactly the kind of polarizing that needs to be qwelled.

It's not me vs. you... Well, it might have been during the campaign, but now, even Bush realizes that he must become more bi-partisan in his second term- at least agree to listen to and respect the other view. I'm willing to put away my disdain for him as a person, if he is willing to hear me out. This, as I see it, is the best outcome for both parties, at least to those of you who aren't radically pinned to one side or the other. It sounds corny, but yes, the nation needs to come together and settle their differences after trading punches throughout this whole campaign.

And yes, this would all apply EXACTLY the same if Kerry had won. It's hard for me to believe that Bush supporters would rally behind Kerry if he had won. BUT, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, since I find myself (who voted for Kerry BTW), agreeing with the notion that we need to come together. As I've said in my other posts, I just hope that Bush comes through with his word that he WILL work hard to gain the support of those who voted agaist him. To do this, he must look at and try to understand the reasons why they voted against him and keep these in mind when making decisions that will affect the entire country.


I hope this doen't come true: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rmmorepartisan

So, is Bush actually going to make an effort to gain democratic support, or did he just say this to prevent his own assassination by some crazy far-leftist?

[extends right hand to Salty and his cohorts]