Beat Quebec To It

[Matt]

Well we can and should only have one leader though, so it's kind have difficult to mash up all three.

[josiegross]

matt - for argument's sake, why SHOULD we only have one leader? i was honestly thinking about this a lot today. all three leaders of the major parties, (and a lot of the "little guys") make excellent points, and have excellent ideas of how to handle the running of this country.

[ecnarf]

I think they're a bunch of dolts.

 

The next time any one of them mentions "values", I'm punching them in the face. I swear to god.

[Matt]

matt - for argument's sake, why SHOULD we only have one leader? i was honestly thinking about this a lot today. all three leaders of the major parties, (and a lot of the "little guys") make excellent points, and have excellent ideas of how to handle the running of this country.

Because very little would be accomplished with three conflicting voices.

[josiegross]

don't we already HAVE four conflicting voices?

 

 

 

 

 

edit: four voices. there might not be a lot of 'em but i hear those bloc's can kick up a fuss

Edited January 19, 2006 by josiegross

[no yu begin wher i end]

I think that what Matt is saying is that there would be too many conflicts if all the voices held an equal share of the power. Right now we have four conflicting voices, but only one will hold power.

[Matt]

don't we already HAVE four conflicting voices?

 

 

 

 

 

edit: four voices. there might not be a lot of 'em but i hear those bloc's can kick up a fuss

no yu begin wher i end pretty much sums up what I was saying perfectly.