Libs getting out after Bush wins 2nd Term, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 7-2-2005 @ 06:17 AM by DrHoracid
"Some in U.S. voting with their feet
By Rick Lyman The New York Times
Monday, February 7, 2005


VANCOUVER, British Columbia Christopher Key knows exactly what he would be giving up if he left Bellingham, Washington.

"It's the sort of place Norman Rockwell would paint, where everyone watches out for everyone else and we have block parties every year," said Key, a 56-year-old Vietnam War veteran and former magazine editor who lists Francis Scott Key, who wrote "The Star-Spangled Banner," among his ancestors.

But leave it he intends to do, and as soon as he can. His house is on the market, and he is busily seeking work across the border in Canada. For him, the re-election of George W. Bush was the last straw.

"I love the United States," he said as he stood on the Vancouver waterfront, staring toward the Coastal Range, which was lost in a gray shroud. "I fought for it in Vietnam. It's a wrenching decision to think about leaving. But America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in."

In the Niagara of liberal angst just after Bush's victory on Nov. 2, the Canadian government's immigration Web site reported a surge in inquiries from the United States, to about 115,000 a day from 20,000."

iht.com.../articles/2005/02/06/news/refuge.html

This is the best news I have heard since Clinton got impeached. Please get the hell out, go anywhere just leave. You libs have screwed up MY country for over 40 years and now that the true americans are taking it back you want to run and hide for the crimes YOU did here.

Don't let the door hit ya in arse...................



reply posted on 7-2-2005 @ 07:13 AM by junglejake
Oy, Trent Lott...He must have made a pact with the devil.

As to liberals leaving this country, that's too bad. Our system of government doesn't work without them. While I may disagree with them most of the time, because of these disagreements the house has to hash and rehash laws. Usually this causes the final law to be far more thought out than one that just goes through the voting process with no arguement.

Don't go, libs, we need you to keep us cons focused, as you need us.



reply posted on 7-2-2005 @ 07:17 AM by SpittinCobra
The impeachment of President Bill Clinton arose from a series of events following the filing of a lawsuit on May 6, 1994, by Paula Corbin Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In her complaint initiating the suit, Ms. Jones alleged violations of her federal civil rights in 1991 by President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and she was an Arkansas state employee. According to the allegations, Governor Clinton invited Ms. Jones to his hotel room where he made a crude sexual advance that she rejected.

After Ms. Jones filed the lawsuit, the attorneys for President Clinton moved to delay any proceedings, contending that the Constitution required that any legal action be deferred until his term ended, an issue ultimately decided against the President by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997). Following the Supreme Court decision allowing the Jones lawsuit to proceed, pre-trial discovery commenced in which various potential witnesses were subpoenaed for information related to the Jones incident and, over objections of the President's attorneys, Mr. Clinton's alleged sexual approaches to other women. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright granted summary judgment in favor of President Clinton, dismissing the Jones suit in its entirety, finding that Ms. Jones had not offered any evidence to support a viable claim of sexual harassment or intentional infliction of emotion distress. Ms. Jones appealed Judge Wright's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but before a decision on the appeal was rendered, Ms. Jones and the President settled the case on November 13, 1998.

www.eagleton.rutgers.edu...



You can read more in the link. He has found not guilty.

Dr. this our country, Not just yours.


reply posted on 7-2-2005 @ 07:18 AM by RANT
Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
Why would liberals leaving make you stronger


It wouldn't. If everyone in those "tiny little blue spots" on the 2004 vote by county map were to leave (48% of Americans) Bush Country would collapse.

They represent among the highest incomes, educations and contributions. The lost taxes alone would render most red states immediately bankrupt with crumbling infrastructures to boot from the lack of federal distribution to their greedy little grubs.

Even corporations would have to start charging those "self reliant" suburbanites what it actually costs to deliver goods and utilities to their remote locations, assuming any are even still willing to string phone, cable and gas lines or deliver goods.

The best case scenario for the continued survival of "Bush Country" would be consolidation of remaining populations into new urban centers under a revised (yet strangely familiar) distribution of government and services...which ultimately would make them liberal again within a generation.

But half of America isn't leaving. Just a little fun speculation on my part about if they did.

EPIPHANY: I never realized before how integral liberal urban centers are to the support of capitalism. Maybe liberals should leave.

An alternate scenario to the reliberalization of Bush Country above, would be remaining in rural sprawl following the urban purge and becoming an almost communist like collective of farmers. OR if such was too abhorant, a theocracy that would almost surely force a strong man or King to power within a generation.

I don't see how democracy of any sort is sustainable without the left in America.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by RANT]


reply posted on 7-2-2005 @ 07:39 AM by drfunk
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Lets see, Billary bombed an asprin factory, a chinese embasy, started a war in bosnia without the UN or the EU crowd. He passed on getting OBL how many times? Sold secrets to China, Murdered children at waco, sent a small child back to a murdering dictator, oh yes, Clinton was so innocent!


well it can be argued that nancy reagan was much more pro-active in the presidency than hillary ever was, the chinese embassy was done by the US air force if i'm not mistaken as was attacks on british troops by US aircraft in Gulf Wars I and II and I think afghanistan, i thought clinton launched cruise missile attacks against OBL's bases in afghanistan and OBL was just missed, the ATF and the FBI I believe murdered children at waco in that awful massacre not the president of the united states, no government has the right to seperate a child from his father and family for political and socio-economic differences and wasn't it UNPROFOR who went into Bosnia in 1992 and was a coalition of many nations ?

in regards to waco i dont think a president tells what the law enforcement agencies to do in regards to operations I think they just do it. I don't think clinton said 'lets go attack waco' and ordered the agencies there. It's not like war where the blame can be layed on the president because he is the commander in chief and takes a nation to war and convince congress for war against the target at hand.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 7-2-2005 by drfunk]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 12 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 16 days ago with 1 member flags
A Protest Technique From Russia (Lighten up OWS)
  Posted 12 days ago with 0 member flags