OT: Soviet Re-Birth

[Renegade 13]

AgentZero said:
but the economy is borked

On its way, in certain parts of the economy, yep.

health care is a mess

That it is. But at least when my appendix had to be removed a couple years back, it didn't throw me into massive debt

the east-middle-west balance is fuxored

No disagreement here.

and Stephen Harper is a tit.

Well I'll disagree with you there, hell of a lot better than the Liberals... and the NDP would be just horrifying

[Ragnarok-X]

So, Obama, Hillary or McCain ?

[Fyron]

I vote Xintis for president.

[Atrocities]

I vote Xintis for present. (2)

[Hugh Manatee]

Dancing Nekkid Phong FTW!

[AgentZero]

Renegade: My main issue with Harper is the fact that he seems quite in favour of passing his conservative Christian beliefs into laws. I have no particular issue with leaders having conservative (or any other) religious views, but when they attempt to force these beliefs on people who don't share them by enacting them as secular laws, such action tends to reduce me to an incoherent frothy-mouthed zealot whose most eloquent statement on the subject can be summed up as, "RAHHH! YOU BAD! AZ SMASH NOW!"

State <================================================= ====> Church

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[Randallw]

My stance is that these are morals that they believe in and believe are good for people. If you don't let them try to enact them then you are basically saying "ok you can be in government but don't try to do what you think is best". The end result is that you are not allowing certain people a chance at government. Once you disallow one part of the community from taking part who else do you think is unfit to hold office. After awhile there is only a small selection of the population fit to serve. If everyone can't agree you may as well have seperate nations each populated by a community that all agree on the same thing, except of course then you have people demanding another countries laws change because they are "wrong", not that they are prepared to live there. As is my want here's a bit from Blackadder

M: Oh, has there been a general election, then, Mr. Blackadder?

E: Indeed there has, Mrs. Miggins.

M: Oh, well, I never heard about it.

E: Well of course you didn't; you're not eligible to vote.

M: Well, why not?

E: Because virtually no-one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick) chimpanzees (Baldrick looks behind himself, trying to see the animal), lunatics, Lords...

M: ...but it hardly seems fair to me.

E: Of course it's not fair -- and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.

M: So, who are they electing when they have these elections?

E: Ah, the same old (?): fat tory landowners who get made MPs when they reach a certain weight; raving revolutionaries who think that just because they do a day's work that somehow gives them the right to get paid...

[Renegade 13]

AgentZero said:
Renegade: My main issue with Harper is the fact that he seems quite in favour of passing his conservative Christian beliefs into laws. I have no particular issue with leaders having conservative (or any other) religious views, but when they attempt to force these beliefs on people who don't share them by enacting them as secular laws, such action tends to reduce me to an incoherent frothy-mouthed zealot whose most eloquent statement on the subject can be summed up as, "RAHHH! YOU BAD! AZ SMASH NOW!"

State <================================================= ====> Church

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

It is indeed. I guess because I am a very right-leaning person, that I see him as much better than the crap-*** Liberals we had in for far far far too long previously (and, by the way, I still think he's 10 times better).

Plus, you have to like a leader who doesn't go around bashing our largest trading partner and biggest ally (the US) like the Liberals (and NDP, who continue to do so... hippy bastards) did the last few years they were in.

And yet, at the same time, isn't afraid to wave the big stick at the US when the time is right.

Remember a few weeks ago, maybe even a couple months ago, during some US Democratic campaigning ****e, Obama and Clinton were both yapping about renegotiating NAFTA because they were whining that it was hurting the automobile manufacturing sector in states like (I think) Michigan and Pennsylvania, to be more in the US's favor.

Harper's comment was something along the lines of... Ok, we'll renegotiate NAFTA, but remember, Canada is the largest supplier by far to the US of energy, primarily in the form of oil, so if you want to renegotiate NAFTA, we have a way better bargaining chip.

In other words, he's not afraid to wave the big stick, while also not pointlessly bashing the US like previous gov't's have. That, I like.

=========

As for the US election... I think you're screwed no matter who you get. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

As long as someone has to be extraordinarily wealthy to come into the highest political office you have, there's something wrong with the system. When you have to spend millions of your own money to even stand a chance at having your name known to the voting public, or to stand a chance of being your party's candidate, the system is screwed.

There could be plenty of people out there, ready, willing and capable of leading your country to better times, but they lack the financial resources to make it happen, to even be considered. This, in my opinion, is just wrong. That said... I don't know how to avoid it with your current electoral system.

[Azselendor]

More like Obama or McCain, as much as I prefer hiliary, she's run a sloppy campaign.

[AgentZero]

Since I'm Canadian, my opinion on the matter is rather irrelevant but if I were able, I'd give my vote to Obama for one simple reason: He's the only candidate not campaigning on a platform of hate. Clinton, McCain, and most of those no longer in the running, all of their campaign message seemed to boil down to: "Ooooh! Be afraid! I am the only one that can save you from a future of global calamity! Economic disaster! War! Famine! Disease! Death! TERRORISTS!!!" Whereas Obama's message seems to be along the lines of, "If we go running around the place, terrified of our own shadow, we're inevitably going to end up doing something really stupid. So let's just not go down that road." And when you look at it like that, I think Obama's the only one who could repair the damage done in the last eight years. Well, him and Ron Paul, but I'm quite sure Ron Paul is out of the running.

And AT, as much as I hate to say it, it sounds like you've been getting smacked around with the fear-stick just a little too much lately. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder, it is the interpretation of the truth that one must watch out for. I am endlessly amused by Fox News' claims to be "unbiased" because the fact of the matter is that there is not a single person on the face of the planet that is unbiased. And there's nothing wrong with that. But being aware of someone's bias is extremely important, because if you understand their bias, you can understand how it colours their interpretation of the truth, and interpolate from that the actual undeniable truths of what their saying.

Sometimes this is very difficult, sometimes it is quite easy. For example, in the video you posted, as soon as the narrator used the word "Muslim" as if it were incriminating, that set off my Ignorant-Right-Wing-Nutjob Detector, and it was soon clear that most of his opinions had a tenuous relationship to the actual truth of the matter, at best.

To avoid another rant (I have a 1 per day limit ), I'd just like to point out that a massive survey of the Muslim world was completed a few months back, and one of the things they discovered was that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% of Mulsims wanted to see an improvement, and a closening of ties between American & the Muslim world. Of the 20-ish remaining percent, roughly 90% said they'd prefer a distancing, and wanted to have as little to do with America as possible. That only left about 2% of the Muslim world wishing harm upon America.

Now, if we are to accept the argument that someone with a Muslim heritage should be disqualified from taking the highest office because a small percentage of Muslims would like to see harm visited upon America, then we would have to disqualify any Christian candidates as well, since a small percentage of Christians believe that America can only be redeemed by the death of the majority of it's population.