Bush's victory sparked speculation that disconsolate Democrats and others might decide to start a new life in Canada, a land that tilts more to the left than the United States. Would-be immigrants to Canada can apply to become permanent resident, a process that often takes a year. The other main way to move north on a long-term basis is to find a job, which requires a work permit. But please spare the sob stories.
See now, Democrats lose this very important election by voting against President Bush, the incumbent, rather than voting FOR John Kerry. See the picture? John "Flipper" Kerry was not what they really wanted (what the heck happened to Gephardt?) but they had "no choice" (it's all the Republicans' fault!) but to vote "for" John Kerry only to get President Bush out office. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ideals were lost in the flipper game.
Kerry was the war candidate, to anti-war candidate evolving Darwinian-style to become the , ehh, Democratic "war" presidential nominee. And yet the United States nearly came within a hair's breadth in electing an entire near-dysfunctional Heinz/Kerry family into the White House. Thanks to the apathetic young MTV crowd along with P. Diddy's threatening "Vote or Die!" slogan. Still the Democrats wanted John Kerry even though his income along with Heinz is worth about 1/2 billion dollars. That's $500,000,000 dollars or 500 hundred million dollars. That's alot of zeros. More than Bush and Cheney put together. Funny how the Democrats had the audicity to accuse Republicans of being the rich, snobby, hypochondriac, sniveling, unfeeling people taking advantage of the poor by giving out our jobs overseas "outsourced" to countries with lower paying wages in virtual slave-labor conditions for those who want it. Oh wait, that's the Heinz company that Terresa owns, by which she's a hypochondriac, too. The Heinz company certainly does a lot of outsourcing! Kind of pathetic, ain't it?
What's more, here's another little insight for you guys. You move to Canada, which is fine. It's your American ungodly given right. But doing so will leave the Republicans, moderate Democrats and swing-voters a greater opportunity to vote for another Republican President into office again. This would all be your fault because of the loss of a Democratic/Liberal-base shifting into Canada. You go to Canada, you can't vote in America. Go ahead. Make the yearly exodus to Canada for the next 3 years. At that rate, we'll have a couple millions less Liberals in the United States, and in time for the 2008 election.
Another thing, you're making this too easy. One little adversity comes your way, like losing an election, you give up and slink over to Canada. Even willing to wait a whole year before getting in. That's dedication right there.
This is what we don't want to see when we go to war fighting for America's very survival. People capitulating by giving over to the other side and lose everything what America has fought for centuries to keep America's freedom and liberty intact. What the Democrats need to do is to take the advice from a brave and whinny Krugman who insisted that you guys stay the course in his "No Surrender!" open letter blather. Meanwhile, Krugman is going slink off for a few months to "work" on his "book" until "January".
Of course, you can still move. Go ahead and move and hope Canada doesn't get attacked by these terrorists and you'll be conscripted into their armies when they find out they're short-changed. Think about that. Conscription. No. Let's use a more scarier word.....DRAFT! Currently Canada has an "all-volunteer" (more or less) Armed Forces much like the United States. But do you know where they stand on the re-instatement of the draft? President Bush made it pretty clear that there is to be no draft while he's in office. The United States sense of patriotism and duty is much too strong. You're taking a bigger gamble by going over to Canada. Terrorists are e..v..e..r..y..w..h..e..r..e (to the voice of Woody in Toy Story as he rotates his head to scare the evil kid Sid in Sid's backyard) and they'll need you should a draft occur.
But if Canada gets attacked something similar to 9/11 or something even hideous...are you going to run to the nearest Canadian army recruiting station and sign up? Offer your life on their platter so you can have the opportunity to fight against these terrorists as a show of duty and patriotism? Or will you move to New Zealand or Australia. Or an otherwise exotic country? Capitulating again to your own weaselness?
Predictable.
15 comments:
we will not leave
we will split
and then you will have get a visa to visit NYC or LA
or any other place of relevance.
Pork and grain we get on the world market cheaper.
I don't think that we really need red america.
Well said, Mike.
Millersign...
I don't want to see a red America, either. I want to see a red and blue America. Each party has something to contribute to help keep the balance. Now, out of 10 presidential elections, America voted 7 times to put in a Republican president. So, either something is missing or somebody is doing something right.
Venom is not the answer. What you guys want is a one party rule.....A blue America. What we want is to maintain a red and blue party system (along with the rest of the up and coming parties).
Diversity is key.
BINGO! You couldn't be so right, Mike! Im still laughing from the last sentence of the 2nd last paragraph!
"Terrorists are e..v..e..r..y..w..h..e..r..e (to the voice of Woody in Toy Story as he rotates his head to scare the evil kid Sid in Sid's backyard) and they'll need you should a draft occur"
Classic! But it is scary that it is funny, in that the possibility of a breakup of our country is REAL. I just blogged about that... geez.
Bush didn't relegate anybody as a second class citizen.
If you got a beef about gay marriage...take it up with the state you're living in. Either you get a statewide mandate to vote on allowing marriage between any two spouses or you don't. The legality of marriage starts in the state where you live in...not at the national level.
Until the states become smart enough on what to do in making marriage legal or not, Bush is not even in the picture one iota about state marriages and the legality of them.
I have my own personal definition of marriage whether you like it or not.
Let the Democrats move to Canada, Italy, Mexico...whatever. If that's what it takes to console them, fine. It's their ungodly right to do so. They can't even stay the fight to try again for 2008. The smart ones stay and see what can be done, and certainly, using the Gore's brim and fire speech ain't going to cut it.
Should've stuck with Gephardt in the first place. It was like listening to a damn record repeating "I fought in Vietnam...I fought in Vietnam...I fought..." So what! Good riddance. I wouldn't mind Gephardt, but Kerry was just so...uh, Kerry.
Take it to the state level, not federal? Are you kidding, Mike McConnell?
Bush proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to discriminate against us as a whole. Care to say something about it?
Karl Rove did a good job of fracturing the country -- harmed millions of people's feelings.
This country is not democratic any longer. It is limited to two party system, much ignoring the rest. Basically, an ordinary person like me or Jason cannot be the President. Only persons with money and influential connections can.
To me, that is not democracy.
The American political system is, through and all, corrupted and done deal.
R-
Thanks for saying my name.
Bush wanted to define marriage in the traditional sense in the Constitution but not to abrogate the state’s decision via democratic votes on the gay marriage issue.
Again, like I said before, take it to the state level where you have a voice.
What we do not need are activist judges abrogating a state’s law regarding marriage and the legality of it. This is where people vote on the issue of marriage, a democracy in action. Change does not happen overnight.
With the way things are going it’ll be a three party system…Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian (think Joe Scarborough on MSNBC…cool guy).
Anybody who moved up the political ranks was at one time or another an “ordinary person like me.” Political connection and influence did not happen overnight to become a well-liked (or hated) politician.
Look at Gov. McGreevey. Well, maybe that’s a bad example or a good example if you lump it with your lamentations as an example of a corrupt political system.
The power lies in the state where you live. That is where the democratic process works in a Republic country.
Are you nuts? If the FMA is passed, the states cannot do a thing about it but to void its laws regarding the gay marriage.
You think your values are better than mine. That is where you are mistaken.
Stop pretending that the democratic process is working in this "Republic" country. It shall dissolve.
R-
Uh….no.
The Federal Government already recognizes that it is the state’s decision regarding a law covering same-sex marriage or not. What this FMA does is to prevent one state that support same sex marriage or civil union from imposing it’s legality of their law (i.e. legal marriage/civil union documents) upon another state (i.e. the transference of gay-marriage legal documents into a state that doesn’t recognize it) who does not support or recognize gay marriage or civil union.
Plus, you cannot have an activist judge making a decision regarding marriage between gay couples when there is, for example, a California family code regarding marriage as to be between a man and woman. That’s a law in California when a mayor attempted to over-ride that single-handedly over the wish of the law that was voted upon. That is what democracy about. People vote on these issues. If it requires another vote the next year to try and change the law, so be it. But one person cannot decided for the whole state of California, for example.
Look at Oregon. Oregon voters voted against gay marriage by keeping it traditional, but not civil unions. And this was a state where Kerry won 52% of the votes, while 57% of the Oregon voters voted for the ban on gay marriage.
Now, it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The FMA purpose was to strengthen and protect DOMA so activist judges cannot over-rule it, nor allow one state (for gay marriage or civil union) force their legal documents upon another state that does not recognize gay marriage or civil union in getting it to accept the legal document.
That’s why I said, take it to the state level. The Federal Government is not limiting the states regarding the legality of gay marriages or civil unions. Just that one state cannot foist it’s own legal marriage/union documentation onto another states who may not to recognize same sex marriage/union it if they have a law recognizing only opposite sex marriage. That’s it. Each state to its own still has the decision regarding the definition of marriage and the legality of it via through a statewide voting mandate.
BTW, Ridor, did you vote for Clinton in 1992 and 1996?
Ok, I voted in '96 but not '92, though.
You said to take it to the state level -- I'd love it to happen. But there will be a conflict that may bring it to the Supreme Court *eventually* to rule on this issue. Which is why I railed against Bush because he is for fanatic x-ian nuts. He shall choose the judges who revolves the law on the bible.
Now, back to the "state level" -- let's examine a case that is gaining the notoriety that may reach the Supreme Court.
I was raised in Virginia. Two or three years ago, they passed the law that forbids the state to recognize the gay marriage within the state and all states. It also included civil unions, child custody et al. The General Assembly of Virginia decided to forbid any "union", "marriage", "custody" et al associated with Gays and Lesbians. That is the state's right, right?
There was a lesbian couple in Virginia who went to Vermont to get their civil union. Then they came back for few months then moved to Vermont. Bore a kid. The partner was busted for cheating on someone else by the parther who is the original mother of the child, I believe. The civil union was dissolved, the courts agreed that the original mother can alternate the child with the former partner because the kid recognized both parents as their own. The former partner didn't like it so she took the child and ran back to Virginia -- Vermont requested Virginia to return the child back to Vermont. Through the courts, the state of Virginia said they do not recognize Vermont's laws related to gays. Now the Vermont court held the woman AND the state in contempt.
How awful is that? Now, how to solve this? Tell me?
R-
It's the state's right to establish a state law. It is not a state's right to enforce their laws onto other states who may feel otherwise or don't recognize. To hold another state in contempt is pure idiocy because of their law.
So cold. I'm asking YOU to step outside of "political attitude" and step in an ordinary situation. How do you deal with this?
Is it wrong?
Technically, it is the state's right to create its laws. But morally, is it wrong to harm a person and hide behind the law, manipulating the law to their advantages?
Is that what the law is designed for? To manipulate or to protect and serve?
The exit polls said that moral values are the priority -- your comments are cold, immoral but again, I got a friend who said that he swears he saw Karl Rove at a gay bathhouse in DC a while ago. Interesting, though.
R-
Nothing cold. Bottom line, one state cannot force another state to change their laws or accept the other state's laws. This is why people vote on state laws or measures.
Using the strawman tactic to talk about seeing Karl Rove in a bathhouse shows desperation, and outside the scope of the question.
The question should be ought the state have this right to pass their own laws or not by the voting majority? Why or why not? At the state level its a democratic process, the national level a Republic. Once you deny the state and the people to vote democratically, you no longer have a democratic institution but a dictatorial institution where activist judges and mayors supercede state laws and measures passed or rejected by voters of that state.
If there are problems, then that need to be worked out between the people, the state, and other states. Subverting the democratic process is not how the United States works.
What? Desperation? What about Rove using the gay issue as a wedge -- is it a sign of desperation on Republicans' part as well?
R-
Post a Comment