Americans didn't flock to Canada after Bush win

[hvp05]

"Canadians can put away those extra welcome mats -- it seems Americans unhappy about the result of last November's presidential election have decided to stay at home after all."

Like so many Liberal threats, this one was baseless... but it might have been nice if they had followed through.

I like this line: "I guess I'm happy Republicans and Democrats have found a way to live together in peace and in harmony," Immigration Minister Joe Volpe said. He must be watching too many reruns of "The Smurfs".

 

[vraiblonde]

Just like the people they try to put in office - all talk, no action.

 

[rraley]

Just like the people they try to put in office - all talk, no action.

The same can be said for Republicans...President Bush and congressional Republicans talked a big game about spending...no such deal in this congressional session and Bush has not threatened to veto legislation like the highway bill, which exceeds the level he set forth.

 

[vraiblonde]

The same can be said for Republicans...President Bush and congressional Republicans talked a big game about spending...no such deal in this congressional session and Bush has not threatened to veto legislation like the highway bill, which exceeds the level he set forth.

Raley, wake up and smell the sheets Has Bush been adament that he was specifically going to do something - shouting it from the rafters for all to hear - then failed to do it???

Don't stick up for those morons - they were juvenile for acting like that in the first place.

 

[Railroad]

This story must have been in somebody's "Save it for a slow news day" pile. Old news, isn't it?

Anyhow, the indiviuals that said they were going to do that aren't representative of the Democratic party as a whole, just like some Republicans (the ones in Chicago come to mind) aren't representative of their party as a whole.

Should we be surprised that the individuals iun question threatened to go to Canada? Not really - they should know their way around up there, after hiding there until the Viet Nam War ended, and the draft along with it. Why deal with a problem when you can run away from it, right?

 

[Bustem' Down]

Also, they wouldn't just be able to pick up and move. When the threat originally came out at election time, the Canadian government stated that Americans would not get preferential treatment and would be subject to the same immigration rules as everyone else. That kind of stuff takes time and dedication, nobody here in America has that kind of patience.

 

[SamSpade]

Just like the people they try to put in office - all talk, no action.

Exactly - no follow through or courage of convictions.

Among the reasons I don't have a lot of respect for some of our Democratic leaders is, many of them voted FOR the war - and are now claiming we should leave, it was wrong, blah-blah-blah. When you're putting men's LIVES on the line, the time for argument is BEFORE the war is engaged - because you can't leave until it's finished. For one thing, it completely dishonors the men who gave their lives at the beginning. It's like building half a bridge and running out of money - the time for decision is BEFORE you commit to it. To quit before it's finished means, you just wasted men's lives for nothing.

I have SLIGHTLY more respect for Democratic leaders who have been consistent - those who were against it THEN, and are against it NOW. ONly slightly, though, because as far as I can see, based on what we knew then, it was a slam-dunk. You gotta admit, if Saddam DID have huge stockpiles of WMD's - why in God's name would you *NOT* go in? I have to remind myself, some of these guys were against going in EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVED HE HAD THEM.

But voting FOR the war, and then wanting to pull out - it tells me one of two things - they either voted FOR it for political expediency (which means, they're precisely the kind of politician I most despise) or they did it but haven't the cojones to stick with it (for WHATEVER reason).

Hate him or love him, Bush pretty much does what he says - I just wish he'd veto more spending.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Rumsfeld is making me nervous now. I saw a short bit on CNN this morning where he was talking about using nukes. The claim is that the bunker buster can't get at deep bunkers and he's looking at the possibility of converting some of our nuclear weapons into small nuclear bunker busters. They didn't really go into much more than that, like I said it was a short bit, but it's not a likable idea.

 

[ylexot]

Rumsfeld is making me nervous now. I saw a short bit on CNN this morning where he was talking about using nukes. The claim is that the bunker buster can't get at deep bunkers and he's looking at the possibility of converting some of our nuclear weapons into small nuclear bunker busters. They didn't really go into much more than that, like I said it was a short bit, but it's not a likable idea.

That's old news...and what's the problem? Nuke goes off underground just collapsing the bunker and the massive amount of dirt above the explosion blocks radiation (I'm sure they'd have to say how much radiation there would be at the surface).

 

[Mikeinsmd]

That's old news...and what's the problem? Nuke goes off underground just collapsing the bunker and the massive amount of dirt above the explosion blocks radiation (I'm sure they'd have to say how much radiation there would be at the surface).

Whatever is needed to show these dolts we're serious.

 

[vraiblonde]

Rumsfeld is making me nervous now. I saw a short bit on CNN this morning where he was talking about using nukes. The claim is that the bunker buster can't get at deep bunkers and he's looking at the possibility of converting some of our nuclear weapons into small nuclear bunker busters. They didn't really go into much more than that, like I said it was a short bit, but it's not a likable idea.

Why does that make you nervous?

 

[Bustem' Down]

Using nukes is a bad idea. Scientists have shown that the vehicle carring the nuke would only penetrate so far. The result would be a large crater and lots of radiation and never reach the bunker. Plus, once we use nuclear weapons, no matter how small, that gives free reign to anyone else who has them. How bad does China want Taiwan? Over all it's just a bad idea and not a real solution.

 

[vraiblonde]

Using nukes is a bad idea. Scientists have shown that the vehicle carring the nuke would only penetrate so far. The result would be a large crater and lots of radiation and never reach the bunker. Plus, once we use nuclear weapons, no matter how small, that gives free reign to anyone else who has them. How bad does China want Taiwan? Over all it's just a bad idea and not a real solution.

Do you think Rumsfeld and everyone at the Pentagon doesn't know what they're doing? That they would authorize an ineffective nuke just to be nuking something? Not every nuclear event is Nagasaki - they have small tactical nukes that do a specific job without widespread destruction.

And I'm not sure why you think it gives other countries free reign to use nukes? We used missiles and other weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan - did that encourage China to use them against Taiwan?

Bustem, I love ya, dude, but you sound like some 70's hippie leftover all freaked out by the word "nuke".

 

[ylexot]

Using nukes is a bad idea. Scientists have shown that the vehicle carring the nuke would only penetrate so far. The result would be a large crater and lots of radiation and never reach the bunker.

MAJOR Unless these so-called "scientists" know what the "vehicle" is and are divulging classified info, then they have no clue.

Plus, once we use nuclear weapons, no matter how small, that gives free reign to anyone else who has them. How bad does China want Taiwan? Over all it's just a bad idea and not a real solution.

Maybe...but you're assuming that anyone would know that we used them.

 

[rraley]

Raley, wake up and smell the sheets Has Bush been adament that he was specifically going to do something - shouting it from the rafters for all to hear - then failed to do it???

Don't stick up for those morons - they were juvenile for acting like that in the first place.

vrai, I am not sticking up for these "juveniles." I am telling you and others that the basic nature of politicians on both sides of the aisle is to talk a big game but then not come through. It is the essence of politics. President Bush says that he will veto a highway bill that costs more than $250 billion; soon he will sign the one passed by Congress, which earmarks $286 billion and includes over 6,000 special projects. President Bush says he will maintain Clinton Administration levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the 2000 Campaign; in mid-2001, he does the exact opposite. In 2000 he said he was against nation-building (he was wrong then), but then changed his opinion.

President Bush has delivered about the War in Iraq, but there are plenty of other instances where he has not. Democrats do the same; they vote for Iraq one day then demonize everything about it the next (though criticism of current Iraqi policy comes from both sides of the aisle; you have to admit there were some serious mistakes when conducting the war), but they hold true to wanting universal health care even after HillaryCare.

Both sides have true convictions and genuine ideas. The problem is that they have to acquire power in order to allow those convictions and ideas to come through; therefore we get highly partisan rhetoric and broken promises.

 

[rraley]

By the way...these liberals who wanted to go to Canada after Bush's loss are delusional. I mean come on...it's not gonna kill them. I am not defending them; I am just providing an opposing view to vrai's concept that liberals and not conservatives put people in power who do not hold true to campaign promises.

 

[Bruzilla]

Do you think Rumsfeld and everyone at the Pentagon doesn't know what they're doing? That they would authorize an ineffective nuke just to be nuking something? Not every nuclear event is Nagasaki - they have small tactical nukes that do a specific job without widespread destruction.

And I'm not sure why you think it gives other countries free reign to use nukes? We used missiles and other weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan - did that encourage China to use them against Taiwan?

Bustem, I love ya, dude, but you sound like some 70's hippie leftover all freaked out by the word "nuke".

Sorry Vrai, but Bustem is right. There's no such thing as sorta going nuclear. Once any side sets off a nuclear weapon, regardless of how small it is, that will justify the use of similar weapons on the other side. Which will result in our using larger weapons in response, which will lead to them using larger weapons, and on and on. There's no megaton limit on how big the first nuke has to be, it just has to be a nuke.

 

[hvp05]

How convenient that this be discussed on the 60th anniversary of the nuclear bombings over Hiroshima (6 Aug.) and Nagasaki (9 Aug.).

I would have supported those decisions and I would support using them again. Say, on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, or the Iraq/Syria border. Maybe we could lure the loonies into the open -- I hear U.S. gubment cheese works as good bait -- and give them a one-way ticket to meet Allah.

I can understand giving deference to Baghdad, Fallujah, etc. because our precision sweeps have worked well, and we would want to maintain the infrastructure that has been established. But in the desert or mountainous regions it's only us and the bad guys. Could such an action drive them to hate us more than they already do?

 

[ylexot]

Sorry Vrai, but Bustem is right. There's no such thing as sorta going nuclear. Once any side sets off a nuclear weapon, regardless of how small it is, that will justify the use of similar weapons on the other side. Which will result in our using larger weapons in response, which will lead to them using larger weapons, and on and on. There's no megaton limit on how big the first nuke has to be, it just has to be a nuke.

I still contend that it may not be recognizable as a nuclear weapon. I.e. no mushroom cloud, surface radiation at low enough levels that are not detectable...just a lot of ground shaking.

 

[vraiblonde]

There's no such thing as sorta going nuclear.

One could argue that we've already gone nuclear as of 60 years ago. And I really don't think other countries need us to start the ball rolling in terms of nuclear attacks. If they want to do it, they'll do it. If they fear the consequences, they won't.

There's a huge difference between us using a tactical nuke to ferret out enemy headquarters and China using one in order to take over another country. Yes, it's a fine ideological line and not all nations will agree that there is a difference, but they hate us anyway and are looking for any excuse to disparage the US and its methods.

I hope Rumsfeld DOES nuke the #### out of these hellholes. Give the hippies something to REALLY cry about.