OT: Soviet Re-Birth

[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...

[Atrocities]

The one thing that simply just won't go away, truth. But then again all truth is speculative depending on who's editing the story or video. You decide: The Truth About Obama - or so they say.

In the face of that could happen in the next eight years, world wide, who do you think will be best suited to fight the good fight. Will Russia fall back into Soviet era thinking, wait they pretty much have already done that, so that point is mute. The question is, how bad will it get. With the rising demand for oil and the falling availability of that resource coupled with the genuine lack of government and private sector involvement in conservation and development of new fuel sources, China's ever alarming way, world wide food shortages, bizzar world wide weather patterns, and a global onslaught of terrorist activity, who will step up and take the reigns of freedom and righteousness and lead us all well and good into the future? And what will that future hold?

I will not be voting this year. I do not see any candidate worthy of my vote. I am for all intents and purposes sickened by the options now before us. In the face of these ever growing threats to world peace, our options for the next eight years are not good ones.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I'd suggest voting independant.

Also, change has to happen locally.

[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.

[Ragnarok-X]

I believe pretty much every person OUTSIDE of the US would want/vote for Obama. At least i feel that way, with all the coverage the US election is getting internationally, i believe so have a decent grasp for whats going on. McCain is an old republican, Hillary is so mad for power. I have the impression that Obama is young and has a not yet corrupted spirit and all his "we can do" just makes you believe in him.

[Randallw]

If I could I'd vote for McCain.

I find the Democratic arguments dangerously...umm, uncaring. I'm no expert but their arguments seem to come down to, and I may be wrong

"Precious American lives are being lost in Iraq. We should just leave them. It was not our role to overthrow Saddam. The lives of Iraqi civilians aren't our problem"

their supporters, such as overpayed actors who feeling guilty at their obscene paychecks think they need to earn it by campaigning against every perceived slight under the sun, decry President Bush for being too religious. I would distrust someone who was too secular. In my mind there is soemthing wrong with people that don't believe in something. Also as a teetotaller that would go so far as to say I loathe and despise alcohol and consider anyone who drinks it to be an alcoholic (Caffeine also) I admire a person who gave it up.

The Democratic argument also seems to lean towards, and yes I may be defensive, the position that it is time for a woman or an african american to be President, as if someone's gender or the colour of their skin makes any difference to their suitability to hold office. Reverse racism still involves racism. Barrack Hussein Obama is as much white as he is black anyway.

The African American democrats also criticise Condoleeza Rice as not being black. As she said she doesn't need people to tell her what she is, she knows what she is.

Most of my vehemence is focussed on the fact that they seem to portray an attitude of caring and being the righteous ones and yet their actions seem to be the exact opposite. Granetd however I'm not American, I may not be aware of the subtlties of American society.

I so have to avoid commenting when I'm depressed.

I should probably apologise. I'm very much a cynic and am generally disgusted by appeals to sentimentality and such things. To me the cry to heal the planet so your children don't suffer is a blatant threat to do things someone's way or your children will suffer. Pathetic.

[Azselendor]

I don't like any of them.

Obama in debates seems to end up flustered, Hiliary went from being likable to insurance industry puppet and McCain went from bucking the GOP establishment to Rah-Rah-Rah GOP Cheerleader.

I want...

Cthulhu