At 12/4/05 10:18 PM, PCHoliday wrote: If I were dictator of the world, everyone would have to learn how to play an instrument or join a chorus.

Who's with me?

Dibs on the pan flute.

At 9/26/05 02:26 AM, gfoxcook wrote:

At 9/19/05 07:37 PM, BonusStage wrote: If you want posts, I could easily post a shit load on your account :P, and I'd never get you banned or anything.

OH GOD NOE.

Hey, quit sticking these ethical dilemmas in my avaricious stat accumulation/outlet for my budding OCD

;D

At 9/19/05 07:37 PM, BonusStage wrote: If you want posts, I could easily post a shit load on your account :P, and I'd never get you banned or anything.

Also in case you ever had to leave and needed someone to deposit, I could do it, i already do for quite a few people, one more person wouldn't hurt.

Oh...sweet, sweet tempation *drool*

At 9/26/05 02:16 AM, gfoxcook wrote:

At 9/19/05 07:12 PM, Rabindarath wrote: * blush *

Interesting reaction to a mention on my list, I must say... very... BONUSSTAGE-ish... (gasp)

dun-dun-DUN...

Well, I guess a hug is out of the question, then.

:)

Now only 9902 posts to go.....

Make that 9,901 and counting. Hey, this is easier than I thought!

;D

I'm afraid it's back up to 9902 posts and counting, as you must have lost one somewhere since 9/19... deleted thread or something, most likely. Anyway... I used to think posting was easier than I thought, too, but then I realised it was harder than I thought (I've been stuck between 8300 and 8600 posts for like half a year now, it feels like...).

Yeah, I just write too many grand epics in my posts. Feels like I'm an undergrad again when I get too caught up on some topic. All that dang edu-ma-cation n'such...hee-yuh.

At 9/19/05 07:12 PM, Rabindarath wrote:
Now only 9902 posts to go.....

Make that 9,901 and counting. Hey, this is easier than I thought!

;D

At 9/19/05 01:59 AM, gfoxcook wrote: Web Pentalist Mark XXXII is uploaded and available.

And yep, finally a status change. More coming soon. Congrats to Rabindarath on teh 3x10kness, welcome aboard, sirrah.

* blush *

Oh, you charmer, you. I haven't been part of such an exclusive club since I represented Brunei at my high school's model UN.

:)

Now only 9902 posts to go.....

At 6/7/05 05:32 PM, _carnie_ wrote:
Perhaps the Queen can no longer conscript forces, but by the way, they didn't gain that 'freedom' until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Called Canada's 'Declaration of independence" it only allowed for Canada to sign her own trade and peace treaties and gave her the freedom to not follow into wars with Great Britain.

Canada's "Declaration of Independence" was established in the ethos of 'responsible government' emanating from the report of Lord Durham in 1839. That established the supremacy of a popularly elected legislature, rather the the executive or the monarch he was to represent, as the main instrument of government.

The Statute of Westminster merely codified the practice that the British parliament couldn't pass "ordinary law" over the legsilature of the Dominions. As for peace treaties etc., yes, this did formally allow Canada follow its own path, but prior to World War I, British & Canadian interests were practically well the same anyway. The results would have been moot. When Canada wanted to change, it changed.

I know that any studious young Canadian such as yourself will now mention the Bank of Canada Act, but keep in mind that the Queen of England owns the Bank of Canada. The personal and corporate income taxes paid by Canadians are the profits for the Bank of Canada. These profits go to Her Majesty and the Bank of England, absorbing more than 10% of the GNP of Canada every year. Her Majesty and associates allow for independent internal and foreign policies for Canada, as long as the profit stream is not interrupted. Should that tax stream ever be jeopardized, Canada would experience a tremendous overt intervention from her owners overseas.

And the virgins...you forgot the virgins we throw into the great volcano in Montreal every year, when we slaughter 5000 calves and flay overselves with birch branches while singing 'God Save the Queen' on her birthday

Knob.

But back to the topic at hand. My feelings are mixed about the Iraq war, but this guy upped voluntarily. I know it was all fashionable to enter the armed forces to get coin for college once upon a time. But, shit, did anyone who did that NOT believe they could go to war at a drop of a hat when they signed up? The guy's argument is subjective at best. Don't have much sympathy for the guy.

At 5/23/05 08:05 PM, GrandTheftAuto wrote: Shit...what was that guys name? Died in office? Tea-pot Dome scandle? If I remember he was the worst, just cant remember his name

Warren G. Harding...a corrupt little fucker if there ever was one.

At 5/15/05 04:00 PM, forest_kickassonleft wrote: He started a pretty pointless war and seems to me like he'll follow Bush into pretty much anything. So why vote for him regardless of other factors he is responsible for pointless deaths and didnt even properly appologise and did some bull shit speech. Opinions?

Only a fraction of the voters would cast their ballot based on Iraq, the majority went for other issues.

The bigger reason why is in the electoral makeup of the country. In a 3 party "first past the post system", one party (Labour) can benefit when the other two (Tories & Lib Dems) are slugging it out and cannibalising each other's constituencies. The Tories take seats from Labour, but the Lib Dems take seats from the Tories.

Scotland & Wales helped Labour alot. They ran with not much opposition in both areas, and they picked up 70% of the seats in the process. It's kind of hard for Labour to lose when you have such a built in headstart.

But basically there wasn't much of an alternative. Michael Howard managed to get the Tories united moreso than they have been in recent years, but no issue he tried, save immigration, really caught fire with the public. Even the "Blair lied" tack couldn't get any traction.

As for the Lib Dems, everyone knew that they weren't going to be government, and those thinking of voting that way backed off when they thought their vote wasn't going to do any good. A nice protest, nothing more.

But the Tories did enough, Blair's credibility is wounded and Labour's majority is whittled down so low that a good Conservative surge in 2009 could wipe it out. Frankly, i don't know why Howard left when he did, he could've been PM.

At 4/28/05 01:28 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Read what I wrote, idiot. Harper. Why would you ever vote NDP, other than to be a freeloading hippy?

I voted NDP for a couple of differemt reasons.

(1) Limited candidates in my riding. I only had 4 last election. Liberal, tory, NDP & Green. I wasn't going to vote Liberal because of Chretien's track record and how Martin failed to inspire me with any confidence.

The Conservative candidate couldn't even rally her own riding association, for fuck sakes. But more importantly, I wasn't prepared to vote for a party that didn't have a clearly defined policy. They had only come together for a couple of months, and nowhere did I get a clear sense how fundamental policy differences between the two old parties were going to be worked out. At least with their Montreal policy convention behind them, I have a better idea.

Green candidate...well. Tweed jacket. That says it all.

The NDP candidate on the other hand wasn't patronising (like the Liberal), didn't state that his main motivation for running for Parliament was anger and couldn't give me a clear idea of a few ideas of her own she wanted instituted in Ottawa once she got there (unlike the Conservative) and actually lived in the riding and wasn't a parachuted candidate (unlike the Green). He was on the board of a major credit union in the city and helped developed an energy consortium for wind power that is now powering a good chunk of downtown Toronto.

(2) Policies. There are times when I agree that the NDP would like nothing more than an open checkbook. But there were some critical policies I wanted in a party I was voting for.

- support for a PR electoral system. It may not sound like much, but , for example, the Tories suffer from a perception of having no support in Quebec, but they do have a base (albeit it small). In a FPTP system, it just never gets any seats for them. Same for Ontario. There were Liberal MPs who only got elected becvause of a lucky split on the right, nothing more. Conservatives have a right like anyone to make their votes count, and they shouldn't be denied.

- a strong environmental policy. After years of watching Layton on Toronto City Council, I was pretty much assured that Layton would stand behind solid environmental protections. This was something I didn't see in other parties, save the Greens , of course, but I mentioned earlier why I wasn't going to support them.

there are a bunch of other reasons why I voted the way I did last time, more of a process of elimination mixed with some positive choices . I'm no ideologue, and I'm open to all possibilites next election. May vote NDP again, may not.

And by the way, I work full time, I pay my taxes, I go to school to improve my skills for better employment. I freeload off of no one....

And I don't shit on other people's beliefs....if that's being a hippy, then get me my sandals & beads.

Interesting, but W's crowning glory will be when he makes Dennis Miller poet laureate of the US. Without the Roberston Davies' jokes and references to the Treaty of Westphalia, watching the NFL just isn't the same...

At 11/28/04 02:16 PM, Lord_Melon wrote: Who would u vote for then? The Lib Dems? UKIP? BNP? Hell, I would vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party before I vote for those guys.

Well, the typos are making this hard for me to understand, so forgive me if I misunderstand a point or two.

I don't think the Tories are going to pick up substantial ground because they haven't been successful in identifying their party with the issues you pointed out.

For example, when it comes to immigration & asylum, Howard has to share ground with UKIP and the BNP (although the latter's support is based on a very different mindset).

The Lib Dems are trying to push forward a strand of fiscal responsibility and downplaying the more nuttier aspects of their social policy.

And UKIP's got a strong hold on anti-Europe feeling.

Howard has tried to strategically place himself as the sound alternative on all these issues, but if it truly resonated with the public, where's the incraesed support? Why are the Lib Dems picking up the by-election seats, why did UKIP do so well in the European elections?

Though the Thatcher-Major era is starting to pass into history, and thus be less toxic to those that hated it come voting time, Howard still has to push the party's "civil war" over Europe out of the minds of the voters and present his party as a united, competent alternative. The fact voters are picking other options shows me that the public still has those visions bouncing around in their heads and they're not ready, yet, to go with the Tories. All Howard can do is position himself for the next election in 2009.

As for the current situation, the parties draining support from the Tories will probably do so for this election cycle, but not the next.

UKIP's still has a perception as a fresh choice, but Kilroy-Silk has to rant a bit longer for the electorate to be turned off to them as a valid option.

The Lib Dems had their chance to knock off the Tories in the IDS era and didn't finish the job. So though I think they'll get increased scrutiny, it won't be enough for to diminish their support. Whose seriously thinking of the prospect of PM Kennedy anyway? They'll just position themselves quite nicely , for now, taking the votes the Tories would usually get from those dissatisfied with a Labour government but never taking so many of them that they could supplant the Conservatives. It's a safe option for non-Labour voters right now until Howard shows he has it all in control.

The downside is that vote splitting in a FPTP system will lead to a 3rd Labour majority until the Tories coalesce.

Sorry LM, it's going to be another four years for you.

At 10/19/04 11:40 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 10/18/04 09:39 PM, Rabindarath wrote:
The Tories will probably take a hit from both the Lib Dems and UKIP. They may recoup a little support from Labour (got a 2% swing from what I remember last time), but I don't think they'll implode this time. Who's to say that the Lib Dems couldn't take away enough Labour support too to get Conservatives elected in their old traditional ridings? Not that I think that Kennedy will be moving into No. 10, but electorates with tired governments and a lack of viable alternatives tend to do interesting things.

The way it's going, the UKIP are more likely to implode, what with Kilroy! mounting a leadership bid after five months in the party self-promoting himself (which most people see as shooting himself, and the party, in the foot).

Then again, Boris Johnson hardly did the Tories any favours with his comments about Liverpool. So it basically depends on who makes the biggest PR gaff, rather than policies.

I agree that UKIP has probably spent what little credibility it had with this faux leadership campaign going on in the press.

From my end, I think any major gaffe by any party would only have a debilitating effect if Blair actually did it. The impression I'm getting (by proxy, I'll admit ;) is that people are looking for change and any option outside of an inevitable Labour victory may suit them nicely.

The Liberal government here is into its 4th mandate, and went through a Blair/Brown leadership tussle which only ended less than two years ago when Chretien finally stepped down in favour of Martin. Up until then, the voters thought a 4th Liberal majority was inevitable, until some of the old Liberal scandals finally fired up some public outrage and damn near led them to elect a reformed Conservative party that hadn't even had a policy convention.

So all the opposition parties gained siginifcant support in this past election, leaving a minority government, despite the fact each of them had made significant blunders on the campaign trail.

So I can picture UKIP gaining a healthy bit of support, even with Kilroy on the loose, but just not enough to win any seats (akin, to our Canadian Green Party here).

Same thing with the Lib Dems and Tories, so long as they do some effective damage control if something goes awry, they'll be in good enough shape. But if Labour fucks up, the voters will take a chunk out of them, just not big enough for a Tory majority because of potential Lib Dem vote splits.

At 10/18/04 09:50 PM, witeshark wrote: Well I'll say this. Putin of Russia pointed out that not re-electing Bush in this time may well be a bad idea, sending the wrong message to potential terror orientated scum. I think he may well have a point. Sorry about your losses bob

Putin's one to talk. Shutting down nearly every voice of opposition to his regime. Guess he knows what he's talking about.

But if you take that point to its logical conclusion, then the current array of democratic governments around the world shouldn't change until the jihadists are squashed. Aren't we supposed to be free here?

:My Dads in the Marine Corps, when the plane crashed into the pentagon he was in there. He lost some of his friends, i lost some in the twin towers.

:From there i want a president that dosn't stand down. Iraq may seem stupid to you, but all in all sadam wasn't a great person.
I think we shoulda taken North Korea first because there more of a REAL threat. But i Believe Iraq is a step to helping stop teorrism.

:I Voted for Gore, and if 9/11 never came around i would vote for Kerry. But i could of never seen Gore handle 9/11...

First off, sorry for your loss.

We'll never know what Gore would've done. He might have been a strong leader, or maybe not. That's a mugs game I'll leave for the historians.

My argument against Bush is not that he isn't weak in his convictions, but it's that he took the 'War on Terror' on a dubious path. This war isn't going to be completely won with military force, but with cloak & dagger tactics, by people you'll never meet doing things you probably won't know about like terrorist cell infiltration.

Iraq was a potential danger, but hardly an imminent one. And several other states, like N. Korea, fell into that category. If Bush was going to go along this path, I would have preferred he take out Kim Jong-Il first myself.

But in bungling the plans for the war, he left Iraq open to new threats by not decisively taking hold of the country in those essential moments just after the military victory. The jihadists didn't have a broad base in Iraq, now they have a foothold. And now he has to squash these uprisings (and breeding grounds for future terrorists) as well as wait around until there is an Iraqi security force that can stand on its own two feet.

So with his military tied up in Iraq, and a huge deficit not allowing him to make the huge intelligence & security investments really needed to make the US safe, what's his 'get tough' strategy going to be? He's blown his capital on Iraq and he can't do precious else. I just hope he spends the money and time to make sure the job is finished right, though it didn;t start off well.

At 10/13/04 04:10 PM, Sineal wrote: The underlying theme in all nationalist parties is racism, because they believe their countrymen to be superiour to others. The SNP accuse the BNP of being knuckle draggers, but they are just as bad. They dismiss the evidence that a third of all English living in Scotland reported having faced discrimination and racial abuse as banter, in much the same way the BNP dismisses a lot of racism against asians as 'banter'.

Nationalist parties can rarely avoid a machismo or chip on their shoulder mentality. How could they? It's the feeling of being deprived against a litany of injustices (real and/or percieved) that makes their nationalism a rallying point, and no doubt one that involves a great deal of emotion as much as logic.

Take the Parti Quebecois here in Canada. I've heard a litany of "injustices" that have been heaped against francophones. To kind of borrow your example, francophones, except within the last 50 years, were not really a significant part of the elite classes in Quebec society. A larger proportion of anglophones could be found in positions of influence (like business, politics) out of proprotion to their size in the general population. And surely discrimination played a role in some cases.

But they too inflicted their own slights as well. Restrictive language laws against non-francophones led to an exodus of predominantly anglophone populations in the 1970s. It was supposed to entrench the French language in Quebec, but it did so at some expense to the use of English.

The above shouldn't be used as a rallying point to dismiss a nationalist's view that independence is a good thing. It's a very difficult thing to redress many years of inequity, and there will be lapses in judgment and errors in policy in trying to make things right. Doesn't necessarily make such nationalists racist.

Now before the off-topic police nab me :)

I thik Labour will have another easy win. UKIP's only has a base of support in Strasbourg because of PR. It's the first-past-the-post systems that never rewards parties like them. They'll be lucky to get a handful of seats. And with the way Kilroy-Silk is acting, is that anyway to build public trust in a fledgling party?

The Tories will probably take a hit from both the Lib Dems and UKIP. They may recoup a little support from Labour (got a 2% swing from what I remember last time), but I don't think they'll implode this time. Who's to say that the Lib Dems couldn't take away enough Labour support too to get Conservatives elected in their old traditional ridings? Not that I think that Kennedy will be moving into No. 10, but electorates with tired governments and a lack of viable alternatives tend to do interesting things.

At 9/15/04 07:00 AM, fivetimesonenight wrote: It is well-know that china now imposes a great threat to Taiwan,and it is reported that china will liberate Taiwan before2006,avoiding the bad effects of 2008 Olympic Games!Honestly speaking,would the USA assist Taiwan when it is under attack!At least,I think the USA would not like to be involved in the China's internal affairs! But the USA signed a defense accordance with Taiwan, so it maybe afford some technical support! Wise americans do not want to Taiwan to be the second Vietam!
I want peace,the Taiwan affairs should be solved with peaceful negotiations!what is your opinion?I want to know more about the outside,because the media in china is controled by government.
Open your mind,open your heart!

The Americans are going to be reluctant to aid Taiwan, but if the Chinese want to ultimately take it by force, they will step in.

The defence treaty is a relic of the Cold War, but I think there are enough rabid anti-Communists who will appeal for the defence of Taiwan, American economic interests be damned.

Besides, with the recent election results in Hong Kong, Beijing would be very wise to ultimately prepare the country for a transition away from one-party rule. The ethos of apolitical citizens only interested about acquiring money will hold out for a while longer, but Hong Kong must show the Communists that that ideal won't last forever.

Repeating a political event like Tianemen will do China no favours when it is trying to rehabilitate itself in the international community. You don't attract heaps of foreign investment and credibility when you renounce your desire for peaceful reunification and bomb the snot out of your 'renegade' provinces.

At 9/11/04 11:43 PM, GodsScope wrote: There are basically 4 different contradicting responses:

There is the "Shut up, you'll be 18 soon enough" or as i call The Avasive response.
There is also the "We dont have it that bad, stop whinning" a.k.a. The Denial response.
Simmiliar to that is the "Those rules are to protect you" or The Opressive response.
Last there is the "Fuck you, you gay asswipe" or The Insultive response.

If you look closely....none of those have any meaning. The first one is plainly stupid because its not a solution but an ignoring of a problem. The second is basicly a dismisal that there is in fact any problem at all. The third is a unthoughtful response considering that if kids were allowed to smoke/drink or look at adult magazines then they wouldnt have to resort to stealing and lying therefore making the world a better place. The last one is made by the 43 year old sitting on his fat ass eating pork grinds.

30 more years, you can do the same ;D

*ducks*

Please...if you're going to respond, give a REASON why teens should not have rights; not just basically insulting everyones inteligence by adding the words not and no in front of the thread tittle.

Everyone's given you the reasons why. But let me give it a go.

There has always been an expectation that anyone who can benefit from and contribute to a society has to have a certain set of knowledge or skills. These come about either through education or experience. You don't wake up one day and become a qualified architect, you go to school to learn the trade. You become a plumber by schooling or on the job. All these take time.

When you as a citizen are asked upon to, for example, vote, it's assumed that you have a basic amount of ability to grasp not only what the candidates are proposing to do, but how their promises will measure against your own philosophy as to how you think the society around you should operate. The former requires some degree of analytical ability. Some teens have it, but alot do not.

The latter is like any education, it forms over time in response to a whole bunch of inputs. They can go from life experiences (having your house broken into may affect your views on crime and how it should be dealt with, for example) to just sitting on your ass to ponder what you think is right and wrong, what you believe in.

It takes time to get comfortable with yourself. And because of that, certain rights are not given to you until a certain age. Being older, I can appreciate I have more knowledge and experience in which to exercise my rights than I did in my late teens.

The age limits themselves are arbitrary as hell. But they're forged out of a recognition that at some point in the teens, you have enough of a foundation to make these sorts of decisions, recognize your responsibilities to yourself and others and can act in a society in an acceptable manner.

So, first off, you do have to be patient. Even though you as individual may be responsible enough to handle these rights, the people in your fellow age group may not. If they are "ruining" it for you, there's shit you can do about it.

The rules aren't their to protect you, they're there to protect others, like me. I don't know whether a 13 year old can handle booze, make an informed vote at the polling booth, handle guns responsibly, would make a good soldier etc. If I looked hard enough, I could find a couple of people, but for the most part, I'm likely to find more people like that at more advanced ages.

Though even then I'm not so sure :)

But you do have it very good in a relative sense. Materially, you probably live much better off than huge swaths of the Earth's population, even if you live near the poverty line in the US. A lot of people would love that aspect of your life. From a civic standpoint, you enjoy a great range of rights. You can speak freely, like here for example, you have the right of freedom of worship, you can join (as a junior member) political organisations without fear of reprisals, and so on. These situations don't exist in many parts of the world and they shouldn't be shrugged off.

Make of this what you want.

At 9/7/04 08:40 AM, The_Patriot wrote:
by the way the queen still has the ultimate power over the commonwealth infact she sacked the priminister of austrailia 25 years ago and there was an out cry by the country that elected them but tough shit. the queen can dissolve parliament when she feels like itand even call in tactical nuclear strikes if she feels like it.

That wasn't the Queen. It was the Queen's representative, Sir John Kerr, the Governor General. The crisis was caused when the Liberal led coalition in the Senate (where they held the majority) blocked an expenditure bill unless Labor PM Gough Whitlam called an election in the lower house, where the Liberals et al. held a minority of seats.

Kerr was faced with either dissolving the government because Whitlam couldn't get an appropriations bill thorugh Parliament, which was a common "no confidence" measure and governments often had to resign over that anyway, or he had to let Whitlam keep governing with the prospect that he wouldn't get the funds needed to run the government. Though for a while there, the bill was merely delayed, it didn't come to an actual vote.

But even in this case, each side deployed a strategy using or breaking constitutional precedents to acheive their political aims, Kerr just had to decide between them. A President, elected or appointed, would have to make the same decision when the two sides are in a logjam like this.

The Queen does hold executive and military authority on paper, true. But if she were to walk in to Blair's office and tell him to fuck off, or launch a nuclear strike against Monaco, there's been too many years of parliamentary precedent and history for her actions to be accepted at face value. She'd be lucky if she was forced just to abdicate if she did that. The monarchy's been a paper tiger for decades, if not centuries.

Personally, I think the Queen's a sweet old bird who's totally befuddled, like most 75 year olds, by the change that goes on around her. I think it's amazing that the republicans in Britain only have the balls to argue that Britain should be a republic once the current queen goes, but not immediately after a referendum or something like that.

Nations are always going to need a head of state of some type. Most systems devolve some type of executive power to another person/institution to ensure some type of balanced system. For example, the Queen holds executive authority in theory, but in modern times, she can represent a check on the legislative branch and provides it with legitimacy.

So here in Canada, the PM must go to the Governor general (the Queen's representative) to dissolve parliament to call an election, despite the fact that he/she can set the date for the election anytime they want. But the formality of going to the G-G reduces the influence, in appearance and practice, of a head of government having absolute control over the system.

Sometimes the G-G we pick are true statesmen, men (and women) of the world and a true embodiment of what the country aspires to be, but sometimes they're just old politicans, some with dubious pasts. Royalty is the same way. Sometimes you get a king or queen who works hard and truly embodies what the nation wants to be. I think the current Queen falls into this category. Other times, they act like drunken, inbred snobs, like say, George IV.

I don't think any system really can ensure you get the best quality candidate. Elections, appointments or hereditary methods always seem to get a mixed bag of leaders. If a country with a monarchy thinks that they can improve either the quality of their head of state or because they've "matured" and want to sever ties to an institution which they don't feel represents them anymore, hey, go nuts. But in their place another memeber of an elite will probably be chosen, and I don't think that's an improvement over a hereditary monarchy in making sure that leader represents the type of example of your country you want to have.

I want to keep the Queen here, not because Canada's a ultra-loyal member of the British Empire anymore, but because our country's so fractured on other constitutional matters, picking a new head of state will just give everyone a headache.

At 9/5/04 06:57 AM, musicmaker234 wrote:

At 9/5/04 01:48 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Teddy Roosevelt is the best I think. A conversationist, trust buster, reformer, strong, not afraid of free speach, simple.

... also a racist. Didn't want anything resembling equal rights. I'll try to find some links that discuss that issue...

My best Prez... Willson. This man made us into the nation we are today. Child labor laws, anti-trust laws, created the national reserve system, graduated tax laws, many laws regarding workers rights. Wilson did more for the comon man than any other president before or since. (Also beat Roosevelt out for the presidency.)

But Wilson was pretty racist too. He institutionalised racism with government departments, torpedoed a clause in the League of Nations covenant regarding the equality of all races and peoples, and thought Griffith's film 'Birth of a Nation' was a masterpiece emblamatic of the nation.

FYI, I do have some sources on these in case anyone wants to challenge them, but I'm just running out the door now :)

My worst Prez... Pierce. This is the man that turned the civil war/slavery/succesion debate into more than politics... bloodshead that started with "bleeding" Kansas. This is the pres that set that lovely ball rolling. Pierce almost destroyed the entire nation. He had no major bills passed during his time in office and though there was need for slave laws during that era he pussyfooted around the issue thus leaving the nation and its people to sort it out themselves. This man was a joke.

Good points, but Buchanan was president when the slavery/states rights debate boiled over, and worst of all, he said that he disproved of the South seceeding, but said he couldn't do a thing about it.

Then he hoped the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision would help everyone reach a compromise. Damn, what a gutless fuck.

Quick references:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fp14.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ww28.html

Here are a couple links that discuss Roosevelt as a racist... just for kicks:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/theodoreroosevelt/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020201_lundsgaard.html

A federal state, or some type of union, would probably work out best for most. But then you take up the challenge of trying to balance the interests of various groups with, or against, each other.

Then there's the further problem of perception and whether Group A thinks they don't get such a good deal as Group B. The perception becomes a reality and then you got a big old mess.

Nations are just collections of people. You choose your lovers, you choose your friends, you choose your spouse, why not a country?

And if the arrangement isn't working, and you got a solid majority behind you, go for it. The States would still be a British colony iif no one went out on a limb like that.

Great idea in theory. Acts of genuine contrition can score major points with the public, but it has to be done extremely well, from a communications standpoint.

So the challenge is at what point do you concede the errors in any policy without looking like a fuck up. And one of Bush's weaknesses is getting his points across. What he did recently, reinforcing his belief that intervention in Iraq was a good thing, but there were flawed conceptions as to how things would go, is a good start, but he needs to do much more to rebuild trust against perceived arrogance. I don't know how he could do it.

At 8/24/04 11:38 PM, Peter90688 wrote: I dont think teachers should share their veiws with their students. It makes sense, noy every student will just want to block her out. Most students will listen to her and take on her beliefs

Maybe some will agree with the teacher anyway. Some will appreciate seeing the other point of view, and the rest will have backbone enough not to swallow it whole.

But if it does get personal, and she wants to penalize you, just go to the principal and the school board and fry her ass.

At 8/24/04 06:00 PM, whytefyre_hawk wrote: Does anyone think that we should make friends with the french or keep them at bay.I personally think we should stay away from them because they blame us if we dont help them with something when they didn't help us before.Plus they were taking money from hussein and that's just wrong.

I said it once, I'll say it again. The French are one of the last ethnic groups on the Earth that it's still socially acceptable to malign in public.

Use the phrase "He'll Jew you down", you get lynched (and rightly so). Say 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys", you get nods of approval.

The French took a hypocrtical stance on a political issue. Big fucking deal. So has every country. You hate them now, in 30 years or 30 days, they'll do something you like and everyone's happy. Until then, it's just more chest thumping bullshit.

At 8/22/04 05:31 PM, IceWraith15 wrote:

At 8/22/04 05:23 PM, Maus wrote: It didn't work for Quebec, it didn't work for the southern states, it won't work for Mexico.

It didn't work for Quebec because they didn't have enough population to affirm a strong difference between them and the rest of Canada.

Horseshit. It hasn't worked for Quebec because there has never been a critical mass that has called for independence. The, sometime, majority of the population have strove for greater autonomy. And by and large, they've gotten it over the past three decades. Support has fluctuated between 15-30% for the most part. The majority doesn't WANT full fledged independence.

And when you travel through Quebec, live there, get to know the people, you know there's enough Quebecois culture, citizens etc., take make a sharp distinction between it and the other provinces.

What do you mean it didn't work for the southern states? I think you mean it hasn't worked YET.

Er, they tried it once, they flamed out. And no one has articulated a case why some of the poorest states in the Union should go and secede from the richest and most powerful state in the world.

It WILL work for Mexico unless action is taken.

Yes, and that action can be taken even at the time of this so-called secessionist ballot.

Your assertion is based that immigration levels and 'indigenous' population levels will remain at their current levels for 50 years. There are reams of science fiction stories written in the 70s, predicting that by now the world's population would be running rampant ("Mmmm...Soylent Green") which turned out to be bunk. Immigration policies can, and likely will, be changed if this scenario even comes close to becoming reality.

And that scenario implies that the bulk of Mexican immigration would be so disloyal that they would vote for secession. So the generation of immigrants, legal and illegal, arriving now will, in 50 years as you point out, still have thr urge to join Mexico? Will their children, most likely born and raised American feel the same to?

It's just to preposterous a scenario and seems not that far removed from a Hispanic 'Yellow scare'.

But the bulk of the polls listed by Gallup put Kerry or Bush's lead within the margin of error. Besides, we haven't even had the Republican convention yet, which will bugger up the polls until everything settles down in the fall.

It's way too early for things like these.

I'm just wondering what type of arrangement he can work out with the opposition. Governing like a majority when you don't have one is always risky business.

At 8/18/04 12:43 AM, BeFell wrote: People couldn't even understand the butterfly ballot do you really think they could handle something that complex. Besides your proposeal messes with the one man one vote system because you are actually casting two or however many votes.

Not really, because under, say, a single transferable vote (STV) system, the vote, unless cast for the eventual winner, gets puts towards the candidate most preferred by the voter (next to their first choice). The vote gets shifted, and isn't a new one that's cast for each candidate.

The only reason the butterfly ballot is even an issue is because the margin of victory for Bush was so small, that the number of people who actually buggered up their ballot made a difference.

I scrutineered in the recent federal Canadian election, and our ballot is much simpler, just put a non-identifying mark in a circle next to your candidate. That's it. Yet about 1-2% of the voters per poll still messed it up. Voters can always adapt to new techonologies and new voting systems, but they'll always be a small minority who (for whatever reason) will muck up their ballot no matter what.

At 8/17/04 11:40 AM, The_Enforcer wrote: However hiring your gay lover in an abusrd position is criminal. He basically payed this guy off with public money to keep his mouth shut.

Nah. An abusrd position is the alleged gay lover now claiming he's straight. Or rather, his lawyer claims he's straight, and the guy himself neither refutes or denies this.

I still say he should run for Senate in 4 years. Corrupt, yes...but he's consistent ;D

At 8/16/04 10:11 PM, joex911 wrote: I understand that, all i'm saying is that i have reasonable doubts of the results, i believe the paper votes should be counted individually, to see if the information in the "Actas" is the same has the number of papers, the OAS and Carter Centre got their numbers from the CNE "Actas", which basically come from the voting machines, after the voting centre was closed, the machines printed those, i guess you could called them results report, which is what i'm questiong.

Wouldn't these be preliminary results then and certification would only come after a hand count? Or do they count only the electronic tallies? I thought it was the former.