People will live with it as long as it exists because it doesn't affect most people very much. It's just sort of there. I've never been personally influenced by it in any way (then again, I'm a Republican!)
What amuses me about America is that they still can't figure out why they're the target of terrorist attacks. Spying on your people won't prevent terrorism - it'll only encourage it.
America is incapable of figuring out on its own that everyone hates it because it can't keep it's big fat nose in its own business. Now its sticking that big fat nose in its own peoples' business. Frankly I don't think Muslims are a threat - guys like Timothy McVey, pissed off at their government, are a threat. And frankly I think Timothy was only the first it what will be a long line of American born terrorists fed up with the incompetency and impotency of the American government.
Last time Canada delt with pissed off citizens was the FLQ thirty years ago, and the worst they did was blow up mailboxes and hassle english people because they felt that English people were a threat to the Quebecois culture. Then they got the tar slapped out of them and no one hears from them anymore.
Canada wouldn't dare think about doing something as amoral as spy on its citizens. To be forced to spy on your citizens says one very clear and apparent thing - you're not in control of your country.
To hell with that crime against freedom called the Patriot Act, and to hell with any American stuck up enough to tell me "It's for the good of the country". It's not for the good of the country - it's for the good of the Republican party.
Who have they been spying on? Anti-war groups, anti-Republican groups, groups that rub the government the wrong way. Have they done anything useful like spy on the KKK? Nah, why would they do that? Everyone knows KKKers are cardcarrying members of the NRA and Republican party, and America would never turn on its own, right?
Just watch - the second a Democrat gets elected the Republicans are going to dissipate the act just so the 'crats can't get their grimey tree-hugging hands on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
:symur::symur::symur::symur: [The Izzet] :symur::symur::symur::symur:
Apprentice of Experimental Explosives
White Hydra - Returning April 23rd
Frankly I don't think Muslims are a threat - guys like Timothy McVey, pissed off at their government, are a threat.
I'm glad you think we have more to fear from isolated nutcases than from organized nutcases.
Last time Canada delt with pissed off citizens was the FLQ thirty years ago, and the worst they did was blow up mailboxes and hassle english people because they felt that English people were a threat to the Quebecois culture.
Yes, and they also killed some people.
Then they got the tar slapped out of them and no one hears from them anymore.
After the implementation of martial law, certainly. You know, the rugged endstage of the relatively minor transgressions for which you've just been lambasting President Bush.
Canada wouldn't dare think about doing something as amoral as spy on its citizens. To be forced to spy on your citizens says one very clear and apparent thing - you're not in control of your country.
It certainly does say that. Observing and documenting the actions of such citizens as seem likely to destabilize the country further would seem to be a prime way of, say, getting back in control of such a country.
Have they done anything useful like spy on the KKK? Nah, why would they do that? Everyone knows KKKers are cardcarrying members of the NRA and Republican party, and America would never turn on its own, right?
The KKK has traditionally had more ties to the Democratic party than to the Republican.
Just watch - the second a Democrat gets elected the Republicans are going to dissipate the act just so the 'crats can't get their grimey tree-hugging hands on it.
Haven't you just been complaining about how it's a crime against freedom? Shouldn't you be rejoicing at the prospect of it being abruptly and permanently eliminated? Or does your love of freedom only extend so far as it does not interfere with spite?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
I'm sorry, I thought you were supposed to be Canadian for a moment.
You're nothing more than an American in Canadian clothing - get out of my country.
Here are some various newsflashes for you, friend:
1. A frenzied hatred of the Republican party is not a distinct and necessary facet of Canadian life.
2. What is such a facet is our ability to hold and argue differing viewpoints.
3. I have not, as a matter of fact, produced any pro-American or even pro-Republican material in the post to which you're responding. As it happens, I do not support illegal wiretapping, or wiretapping in general (for example).
You're not even posting arguments and yet have the balls to send me a spam warning. Some moderator you are.
Let's make this easy for you.
Arguments put forth in my previous post
1. Organized militants pose more of a threat to national and global (and even individual) security than do isolated, individual nutcases acting of their own accord.
2. In response to your retarded contention regarding the FLQ (viz., your words, "the worst they did was blow up mailboxes and hassle english people because they felt that English people were a threat to the Quebecois culture"), I reminded you of the murder of Labour Minister Pierre Laporte, and hoped that you might shake yourself out of your idiocy long enough to remember also the assault and kidnap of James Cross, as well as the threats levelled at numerous other persons and their families.
3. In response to your vague approval of the squashing of the FLQ, I reminded you that this end was brought about by the literal imposition of martial law by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. I mentioned this because your implicit support for such action does not stack up favourably against your condemnation of something as relatively inoccuous as clandestine surveillance.
4. In response to your (valid) assertion that resorting to illegal wiretapping is a sign that one is not in control of one's country, I agreed, and added that such wiretapping would seem to be a significant step in the direction of regaining said control.
5. I reminded you that the Democratic party has had far more ties with the KKK throughout both organizations' histories than has the Republican party. The Dems used to be known, in fact, as "The Party of the Klan," if you can imagine.
6. At last, in response to your snide condemnation of something that hasn't actually happened - and may not actually ever happen - I reminded you that the dissolution of the Patriot Act was exactly what you have been demanding, and queried as to why you feel that such a dissolution would become unacceptable if done, as you say, for spite?
You can feel free to respond to literally any of them, unlike in your last post where you acted as if they didn't exist.
Finally, the spam warning was for another post, in another thread, that was spam. The posts you're making in this thread are essentially incompetent, but they're certainly within the bounds of our rules. Why you felt the need to bring this up is a mystery, though I'm sure you can rest secure in the knowledge that you'll have plenty more warnings to discuss with the Mods in future.
Thanks for letting me know you're a worthless troll. This will make future decisions so very much easier. Please don't feed the troll, Furor.
Bush do bad stuff.
Many americans dont care Bush do bad stuff.
SOME Canadians think the Rep. Bush is teh sux.
Patriot Act is the lose unless you are Bush.
Apparently there won't be a Democratic President.
It also won't be Hillary.
McCain is more hot than McCain's fries.
Just out of curiosity, what do you all feel the chance is that a woman - any woman - could get elected to the Presidency in the U.S. Forget about any personal factors (like, tons of people hate Hilary) and just talk about gender. What do you think?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Just out of curiosity, what do you all feel the chance is that a woman - any woman - could get elected to the Presidency in the U.S. Forget about any personal factors (like, tons of people hate Hilary) and just talk about gender. What do you think?
I'm glad you think we have more to fear from isolated nutcases than from organized nutcases.
To be fair, organized nutcases are a lot easier to understand, track, and stop. That's why Vietnam was so much harder to fight than traditional wars. When everyone is a potential enemy, no enemy wears uniforms, and every conflict is unique things become a lot more dangerous. (Is it harder to field the same ball in the same way to the same place 100 times, or 100 random throws?)
Just out of curiosity, what do you all feel the chance is that a woman - any woman - could get elected to the Presidency in the U.S. Forget about any personal factors (like, tons of people hate Hilary) and just talk about gender. What do you think?
What extreme said. Also, if Rice isn't tainted by anything too egregious over the next few years, many many polls already have her at the front of potential candidate packs. And if Democracts (this may be a shocking suggestion to young viewers) do something stupid, like say nominate Hilary, you could pretty easily have Rice v. Clinton (which, sorry Green and Libertarian party members, means about 99.999999% chance of a woman being elected president). What I'd be most interested in seeing would be VP choices for either one. Clinton is pretty young as a politician herself most of her powerbase is still Bill Clinton's circle, and Rice is almost exclusively the Bush administration. Be cool to see if either one picked some big name from said groups, or picked somebody unexpected.
I suspect you may have been hit with a double-positive there.
Heh, edited. Thanks.
Never gonna happen. Getting the GOP to nominate a woman would be hard enough, but they'll burn in Hell before they vote for a black.
You realize polls aren't pulled out of random asses, they are pulled from the asses of the appropriate parties voters. Condy is leading, and I think its silly to say either party wouldn't vote for an African-American given how nearly-universally popular Colin Powell is (and certainly was, before becoming an Iraq-pusher at the behest of his boss).
I'm an artist. I honestly don't know much about politics outside of the context of art history and random bits that I pick up from varied sources. But for what it is worth, it feels sickening whenever I think back to the ideals that forged America and relate them to current events. I've been taught that early on in American history, that personal freedom was essential. Perhaps that is an overly romanticized history. I honestly don't know. But based on everything I have heard, our "founding fathers" truly believed in these ideas and fought tooth and nail to acheave the independance to innact them.
I made this point in another post, but I basically have to ask myself the question. At what point does America stop being America? Is it dying when our civil liberties are being chipped away slowly? Is it already dead when a generally apathetic populace doesn't seem to be deeply phased one way or another?
Regarding the side question of a woman president: I believe it is favorable. I think that the concept of a "first female president" has been slowly building momentum and the current enviroment could even give her an advantage innitially.
I think it's quite interesting to discuss the viability of a female candidate in the context of America's society in general. We tend to consider ourselves the champion of freedom, civil rights and diversity for the world and yet we have a demographically narrow history of leadership. Other than the obvious wealthy, white male qualification, we haven't even elected more than one President who was not of the Protestant faith (Kennedy) and only even nominated one since (Dukakis). There are roughly 50 countries in the world which have elected female heads of state (ie., non-monarchs) dating as far back as 1954. They include nations like France, Great Britain, Germany, Ireland, Canada, Ukraine, Israel, Mongolia, Argentina, Philipines, Haiti, Switzerland, Nicaragua, Liberia, Panama, Finland, Indonesia, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, and Pakistan. Pakistan, for pete's sake - a country that is predominately conservative Muslim has elected a woman to lead its people. Every continent (other than Australia) is represented, every economic status, every major religion, and just about every culture in the world has proven a woman can lead. But not the United States.
I think the fact that people are even seriously considering it is quite exciting, but I'm fairly certain it's just the first step and it will take a lot longer to actually happen. Hopefully I'm wrong. Hopefully the only reason a woman hasn't been nominated before now has been based solely on a lack of qualified candidates and not on gender. I doubt it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I wonder if it is a case of plagery, or just an obvious idea done independantly twice... although you would think that Kabbash would do a little research before putting out his game. Finally, from the sounds of it, Kabbash made the Patriot Act Monoply more as a political publicity statement, than to be an actual game... as he is ripping off Monopoly as well.
America is incapable of figuring out on its own that everyone hates it because it can't keep it's big fat nose in its own business. Now its sticking that big fat nose in its own peoples' business. Frankly I don't think Muslims are a threat - guys like Timothy McVey, pissed off at their government, are a threat. And frankly I think Timothy was only the first it what will be a long line of American born terrorists fed up with the incompetency and impotency of the American government.
Last time Canada delt with pissed off citizens was the FLQ thirty years ago, and the worst they did was blow up mailboxes and hassle english people because they felt that English people were a threat to the Quebecois culture. Then they got the tar slapped out of them and no one hears from them anymore.
Canada wouldn't dare think about doing something as amoral as spy on its citizens. To be forced to spy on your citizens says one very clear and apparent thing - you're not in control of your country.
To hell with that crime against freedom called the Patriot Act, and to hell with any American stuck up enough to tell me "It's for the good of the country". It's not for the good of the country - it's for the good of the Republican party.
Who have they been spying on? Anti-war groups, anti-Republican groups, groups that rub the government the wrong way. Have they done anything useful like spy on the KKK? Nah, why would they do that? Everyone knows KKKers are cardcarrying members of the NRA and Republican party, and America would never turn on its own, right?
Just watch - the second a Democrat gets elected the Republicans are going to dissipate the act just so the 'crats can't get their grimey tree-hugging hands on it.
Apprentice of Experimental Explosives
White Hydra - Returning April 23rd
My DA page
I'm glad you think we have more to fear from isolated nutcases than from organized nutcases.
Yes, and they also killed some people.
After the implementation of martial law, certainly. You know, the rugged endstage of the relatively minor transgressions for which you've just been lambasting President Bush.
It certainly does say that. Observing and documenting the actions of such citizens as seem likely to destabilize the country further would seem to be a prime way of, say, getting back in control of such a country.
The KKK has traditionally had more ties to the Democratic party than to the Republican.
Haven't you just been complaining about how it's a crime against freedom? Shouldn't you be rejoicing at the prospect of it being abruptly and permanently eliminated? Or does your love of freedom only extend so far as it does not interfere with spite?
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
You're nothing more than an American in Canadian clothing - get out of my country.
You're not even posting arguments and yet have the balls to send me a spam warning. Some moderator you are.
Flame Warning. See you in two days. -Gob
Apprentice of Experimental Explosives
White Hydra - Returning April 23rd
My DA page
1. A frenzied hatred of the Republican party is not a distinct and necessary facet of Canadian life.
2. What is such a facet is our ability to hold and argue differing viewpoints.
3. I have not, as a matter of fact, produced any pro-American or even pro-Republican material in the post to which you're responding. As it happens, I do not support illegal wiretapping, or wiretapping in general (for example).
Let's make this easy for you.
Arguments put forth in my previous post
1. Organized militants pose more of a threat to national and global (and even individual) security than do isolated, individual nutcases acting of their own accord.
2. In response to your retarded contention regarding the FLQ (viz., your words, "the worst they did was blow up mailboxes and hassle english people because they felt that English people were a threat to the Quebecois culture"), I reminded you of the murder of Labour Minister Pierre Laporte, and hoped that you might shake yourself out of your idiocy long enough to remember also the assault and kidnap of James Cross, as well as the threats levelled at numerous other persons and their families.
3. In response to your vague approval of the squashing of the FLQ, I reminded you that this end was brought about by the literal imposition of martial law by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. I mentioned this because your implicit support for such action does not stack up favourably against your condemnation of something as relatively inoccuous as clandestine surveillance.
4. In response to your (valid) assertion that resorting to illegal wiretapping is a sign that one is not in control of one's country, I agreed, and added that such wiretapping would seem to be a significant step in the direction of regaining said control.
5. I reminded you that the Democratic party has had far more ties with the KKK throughout both organizations' histories than has the Republican party. The Dems used to be known, in fact, as "The Party of the Klan," if you can imagine.
6. At last, in response to your snide condemnation of something that hasn't actually happened - and may not actually ever happen - I reminded you that the dissolution of the Patriot Act was exactly what you have been demanding, and queried as to why you feel that such a dissolution would become unacceptable if done, as you say, for spite?
You can feel free to respond to literally any of them, unlike in your last post where you acted as if they didn't exist.
Finally, the spam warning was for another post, in another thread, that was spam. The posts you're making in this thread are essentially incompetent, but they're certainly within the bounds of our rules. Why you felt the need to bring this up is a mystery, though I'm sure you can rest secure in the knowledge that you'll have plenty more warnings to discuss with the Mods in future.
Thanks for letting me know you're a worthless troll. This will make future decisions so very much easier.
Please don't feed the troll, Furor.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Bush do bad stuff.
Many americans dont care Bush do bad stuff.
SOME Canadians think the Rep. Bush is teh sux.
Patriot Act is the lose unless you are Bush.
Apparently there won't be a Democratic President.
It also won't be Hillary.
McCain is more hot than McCain's fries.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Disregarding any personal factors? 100%
To be fair, organized nutcases are a lot easier to understand, track, and stop. That's why Vietnam was so much harder to fight than traditional wars. When everyone is a potential enemy, no enemy wears uniforms, and every conflict is unique things become a lot more dangerous. (Is it harder to field the same ball in the same way to the same place 100 times, or 100 random throws?)
What extreme said. Also, if Rice isn't tainted by anything too egregious over the next few years, many many polls already have her at the front of potential candidate packs. And if Democracts (this may be a shocking suggestion to young viewers) do something stupid, like say nominate Hilary, you could pretty easily have Rice v. Clinton (which, sorry Green and Libertarian party members, means about 99.999999% chance of a woman being elected president). What I'd be most interested in seeing would be VP choices for either one. Clinton is pretty young as a politician herself most of her powerbase is still Bill Clinton's circle, and Rice is almost exclusively the Bush administration. Be cool to see if either one picked some big name from said groups, or picked somebody unexpected.
Heh, edited. Thanks.
You realize polls aren't pulled out of random asses, they are pulled from the asses of the appropriate parties voters. Condy is leading, and I think its silly to say either party wouldn't vote for an African-American given how nearly-universally popular Colin Powell is (and certainly was, before becoming an Iraq-pusher at the behest of his boss).
I made this point in another post, but I basically have to ask myself the question. At what point does America stop being America? Is it dying when our civil liberties are being chipped away slowly? Is it already dead when a generally apathetic populace doesn't seem to be deeply phased one way or another?
Regarding the side question of a woman president: I believe it is favorable. I think that the concept of a "first female president" has been slowly building momentum and the current enviroment could even give her an advantage innitially.
I think the fact that people are even seriously considering it is quite exciting, but I'm fairly certain it's just the first step and it will take a lot longer to actually happen. Hopefully I'm wrong. Hopefully the only reason a woman hasn't been nominated before now has been based solely on a lack of qualified candidates and not on gender. I doubt it.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Yahoo News on Patriot Act Monopoly game.
I wonder if it is a case of plagery, or just an obvious idea done independantly twice... although you would think that Kabbash would do a little research before putting out his game. Finally, from the sounds of it, Kabbash made the Patriot Act Monoply more as a political publicity statement, than to be an actual game... as he is ripping off Monopoly as well.