In The Event Of A Bush Election...

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Duck and cover! The nuclear holocaust has just begun! Hehe...the scary part is that this is not too far off...

Okay so, in the hopefully *unlikely* event that Bush is reelected, I will move to Canada...the sad part of this is that I'm not joking. If that just doesn't work, my first order of business will be a nice cozy bomb shelter and a nice healthy impeachment organization. So who's with me on the latter?

If not or you have a better idea, go ahead and post below.




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
All the liberals always talk about leaving the country when conservatives get power but they never do. I think Bush should set aside government funds to move liberals out of the country after the election. A nice, free, one way trip to Canada!



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Iceman,
I'll be with ya on the impeachment board if the li'l shrub steals it again! I'm thinking Costa Rica, Canada is just too cold.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Yeah, we need to impeach Bush!!! Don't leave America -- Change America



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Go ahead and try. If you can't accept democracy, you shouldn't be living in one. Move to Iran.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Go ahead and try. If you can't accept democracy, you shouldn't be living in one. Move to Iran.


That's quite a twist on my words, don't you think? I think democracy is just peachy but when a leader leads his people into a war without their consent as their children die in his name for a cause which never had any merit, it tends to be a little hard to support him as legitimate.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades

Originally posted by Herman
Go ahead and try. If you can't accept democracy, you shouldn't be living in one. Move to Iran.


That's quite a twist on my words, don't you think? I think democracy is just peachy but when a leader leads his people into a war without their consent as their children die in his name for a cause which never had any merit, it tends to be a little hard to support him as legitimate.


Democracy is when the majority of people vote, they generally get what they wanted. That seems crewl, so in America we have a representative democracy. I think you know what that is. Bush had the people's consent to go into Iraq. Maybe not all the people's, but most of them. He had most of the congressmen, senators, and other politicians consent. After we realized Saddam may not have had WMD's, that's when everyone turned on him.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman
Democracy is when the majority of people vote, they generally get what they wanted. That seems crewl, so in America we have a representative democracy. I think you know what that is. Bush had the people's consent to go into Iraq. Maybe not all the people's, but most of them. He had most of the congressmen, senators, and other politicians consent. After we realized Saddam may not have had WMD's, that's when everyone turned on him.


Agreed, I retain my argument with the removal of 'without our consent'. It is still clear however that a leader has lost all honor and legitimacy when he orders his own people to death for a cause without merit.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades

Originally posted by Herman
Democracy is when the majority of people vote, they generally get what they wanted. That seems crewl, so in America we have a representative democracy. I think you know what that is. Bush had the people's consent to go into Iraq. Maybe not all the people's, but most of them. He had most of the congressmen, senators, and other politicians consent. After we realized Saddam may not have had WMD's, that's when everyone turned on him.


Agreed, I retain my argument with the removal of 'without our consent'. It is still clear however that a leader has lost all honor and legitimacy when he orders his own people to death for a cause without merit.


If you retain your argument with the removal of "without our consent", then you have removed your argument that Bush went in against the democratic process. That was your argument. As for your other argument that he sent people to death for a cause without merit, there was cause. This has been discussed numerous times in other threads and I don't want to have to argue my point AGAIN. And if what you say is true, then why is he largely favored by the army that he's "put to death for a cause without merit"?





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join