Current US Administration

[SiFi]

This is why I pity those of you living in the US nowadays. Give a government power and that government will abuse it. Think that the patriot act can't be used to do extremely stupid things? Behold:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/3/28/132751/380

That's right, TRON has been declared sensetive by your DHS, and all available copies are to be sequestered.

I pity the 50.01% of you that voted for Bush and his cronies a *second* time around. Didn't all the lies and incompetence and problems with the patriot act and the war and all the rest of it tip you off? If/when Bush declares himself emperor of the First Christian Empire of North America, please have the courtesy to start a civil war, ok? We don't need him invading the praries to get at our oil sands.

(MCP voice) END OF RANT

[Stang]

So true

[Ghryphen]

[LoS-NutzholzWolf]

The Democrats didn't show anyone better during last election show I choose to vote for the idiot we already had instead of getting another one that couldn't figure out where we were already. Maybe next year one of the parties will put up a candidate with more than a teaspoon of brains.

[Raiyven]

Nutz does have a point.

All banter and bitching about things done under the Bush administration aside, what's worse: to have an inexperienced newb come in and try to upend everything and *possibly* make things worse because he really doesnt know what the hell is going on, or stick with predictable idiocy?

Think about this in the Canadian context, Si. How do you think Chretien stayed in for three terms? In the 2000 election, the Liberal Party won at 40% of the popular vote(for our Yankee friends: we've got no fewer than 5 goddamn parties: Liberal (mishmash of everything, but generally level), Conservative (these days, actually small-'c' conservative), NDP (communists. well, alright in the 50s they were. But it's the socially-minded soapboxers who couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag if they had one. We do have a registered Communist Party of Canada and Marxist-Leninist Party though), Bloc Quebecois (based out of Quebec; depending on leader, is arguably the most radical group for many deep historically cultural reasons) and usually another independent group, notably the Green Party (environmentalists). Anyways, in the 1997 election, Liberals had 51.5% of the popular vote, and had won previously in 1993. It's speculation, but from what I recall the opposition (which is basically just the Conservatives, historically) had undergone a number of changes in leadership. Basically, we could vote for the same old, or some new guy nobody really heard of. Even though the country was kinda boring itself up under Chretien, we knew what to expect. Same idea.


Source: Simon Fraser University, Department of Political Science

The other problem with Kerry is that he was a soapboxer; a lot of people simply don't like it, despite what good intentions he may have had. It's very easy to go 'rrraaaaaagghhh this bad!'. Same thing with Jack Layton (NDP leader up here). He might have some good intentions (environmental policy), but he soapboxes a lot (on silly things too sometimes. Like ATM fees), and that bothers/bothered people a great deal I think. Remember Bob Rae? (NDP Premier of Ontario [premier is equivalent of a governor]) In the early 90s everyone was ticked off with the Liberals and Conservatives, and so the vote goes to the lesser of three evils. And he farked the province up but GOOD because they really didnt know what they were doing.

But still, keep in mind that US voters really only have two choices if they vote at all. Would things be any different under Kerry? You can't just drop into a situation and start changing ****, channels and senates and approval BS notwithstanding things simply fall apart if you try and change them in rapid order, and a smart person realizes this. (A manager we had at work didnt. We hated her.) Likely, you would be seeing a very similar playout of politics had it been Kerry. Different face, different BS on CNN, but honestly what the hell else would be different in a political apparatus that takes TIME to do things and is effectively based on individual approval of ideas by votes in a Senate? You can get voted in, but honestly if you don't have support high up, you're not gonna get dick passed.

Am I disputing the very NKVD feel of the Patriot Act? No. In this application, in fact, i'm likening it to the political strength behind Socialist Realism from 1934-1953; you show what's deemed politically appropriate, and even past texts and films were reconsidered and deemed to be politically unsound. Same thing. That the Patriot Act creates a carte blanche that exists outside the judicial framework of the state is what is most frightening.

And also: to play devil's advocate. Before you start an Anti-American rant with a Christian overtone, our country has been just as naughty in terms of censorship on religious grounds:

Source: Canadian Book and Periodical Council, Freedom to Read: list of banned texts

(as for films, I can't readily find an objective resource)

You want to talk about something frightening? Busholino's out next year. Predictability's out the window.

[Raiyven]

Oh, but I do agree about keeping the tar sands. Before I met Andie I was considering moving out there to work xD

[SiFi]

Bush isn't just a familiar idiot, he's;
-the head of an administration that has lied repeatedly and delibertaly to grab and maintain power
-he started a war for the sake of stealing oil
-he ****** up FEMA badly enough that it disregarded warnings about Katrina and the levies, and then was seemingly incapable of getting any sort of disaster relief underway at once
-he's advocated torture
-he's made numerous signing statements intended to enhance his own personal power
-he's suspended Habeus Corpus

Just off the top of my head.

This isn't predictable idiocy, this is predictable incompetence leading to tyranny.

Yeah, Cretien was boring. But he wasn't ******* up our or anyone elses country.

Rai, you realise that those are challenges at a local level, quite often at school libraries, with no easily visible national agenda, right? Sure, small and petty reasons, but not nationally mandated. So, any of those books could still be aquired at most bookstores that would have carried them. Not a very effective ban, then.

No one was harmed by religiously motivated attempted local bans on books. But what about someone who placed a deeply religious person who is opposed to any kind of birth control and pushes abstinance only sex ed in charge of population affairs in the entire US? Wouldn't that be kind of a hinderance on people - especially kids in school - getting real information on thier bodies and how they work? Couldn't that cause a bit more harm?

How could a newbie be any worse than Bush is right now? He doesn't know how to run a country? Neither does Bush, apparently.

(It's not that I'm more upset about TRON than everything else, it's a case of the straw that broke the camels back.)

[LoS-NutzholzWolf]

If you want to talk about presidential powers then you should note that the office of the president was created with far fewer powers than it holds now. It took several presidents to step over the line in reaction to events in the world to start using powers that were not given to any branch of the government and then have the Judicial branch back them up later on when Congress disputes it.

My personal problem is with Congress. They say we don't have enough money for Social Security or Medicare yet they spend Billions of pork barrel projects for themselves. If you want to talk about corrupt and power hungry, look at the US congress because nearly all of those people are self loving, RICH, self-helping, and gives millions of the tax-payers money to their own few friends or constituents. Example: The million dollar bridge to no where. Another good one thats tacked onto a bill is a Tea Pot museum.

The President took his cue from the people after 9/11 when we were crying out for blood. Everyone, and I mean everyone, approved of his motives then. Then he saw the opportunity to build a model government in the Middle East and begin the waves of revolution that may lead to a more stable region, thats when he invaded Iraq. If he hadn't then the hornets nest would still be pumping out people who are bred for killing and who believe that their "god" is so strong that it keeps the westerners away. By attacking their beloved region and holding a large position in it that blows away their idea that their land can't be conquered by western powers.

Now heres the question: If Bush wasn't elected as president the first time, then what would have the other person chosen when faced by a country cry out for blood after 9/11? If Bush wasn't re-elected as president, what could have been done to change the situation without making the problem worst then it already is? Also to continue of the last question, if the Democrats won the presidency in the last election then would they have also won Congress?

[Raiyven]

Originally Posted by LoS-NutzholzWolf

Now heres the question: If Bush wasn't elected as president the first time, then what would have the other person chosen when faced by a country cry out for blood after 9/11? If Bush wasn't re-elected as president, what could have been done to change the situation without making the problem worst then it already is? Also to continue of the last question, if the Democrats won the presidency in the last election then would they have also won Congress?

He has a point. Would another, completely different candidate had a different response to 9/11? Or, would another, completely different candidate really made any difference since the 2004 election?

And like he (and I) said, there's no guarantee things would've been any different with someone else winning the presidency, and again as we've both said, if you don't have the support of Congress there isn't a great deal you can do. Yes, Bush as a person is not very intelligent. But at the same time, can you tell me definitely that Edwards wouldn't have done the same things he has? There's always the chance that he might not have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan. But Afghanistan, as a reactionary measure to 9/11, could be argued as a sure bet.

And on the point I made on censorship: yes, those are regional implementations, this I understand. What I should have clarified was that the majority of those texts were banned for unsavoury content as would be seen under Christian morality. Ours is NO LESS a Christian state than the one to the south.

And also:

Originally Posted by SiFi

Great peacekeeping job there, really showing them who's boss. Now instead of just saying how much they hate the US, they can get out there and show it, without all the hassle of leaving the country.

Your political views aside, friggin Jester was over there, man! Jeez.

And in some ways it's not like our peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is going remarkably well. The only difference is that I don't think we have a majority of the population pissed off at us as well.

You're talking about problems in Congress as if it's the only political structure that has any corruption. I don't even *need* to point out the fallacy there. As immaterial and subjective as the concept is, selfishness is simply a human trait. Again, look at home: sponsorship scandal? Was that not a pet project in which large amounts of money were re-routed somewhere?

I'm sorry my friend, but your last statement is undermining your arguments to some degree:

Originally Posted by SiFi

Any opinion I could give would be tainted by my knowledge of what has happened over these past six years.

I'm having a hard time viewing much of your argument with academic objectivity because some of it is rooted in narrow bias. I'm not trying to ignore the things you're presenting, but rather that they are not unique to the US, and just on speculation there is no guarantee that, given 9/11 as an circumstance, reactionary measures following would have been any different.

And on Iraq again: say tomorrow the Admin says 'alright, thats it, we're done here'. You think demobilization will happen in a day? Besides, it's partially evident that radical elements may have some degree of popular support. The US leaves, you have a bloody coup, civilians die, and the whole region destabilizes further. Yes, I think it's awful that people are dying over there, of all nationalities. But with a US-backed government in place there, again, while not entirely stable it is still FAR more predictable than some radical ass in a top hat that would take its place should the US demobilize.

[SiFi]

Yes, the conquest has gone remarkably well, hasn't it. Why, the insurgents are just *now* getting around to using trucks full of chlorine gas and explosives on targets. Great peacekeeping job there, really showing them who's boss. Now instead of just saying how much they hate the US, they can get out there and show it, without all the hassle of leaving the country.

What evidence can you provide that any terrorist groups were in Iraq prior to the invasion? Isn't the reason we invaded afghanistan because *that's* where they were?

Yes, there are problems in Congress. Yes, some people are spending money on pet projects. But at least the money isn't disappearing like 363 tons of cash, gone with no record of where it went. Even in your example, the pork-barreler was voted out of office because he was over-spending.

For your last paragraph, I'll say...I don't know. Any opinion I could give would be tainted by my knowledge of what has happened over these past six years. I can make some guesses, if you'd like. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. All I can say that I hope is that any hypothetical replacement in 2004 would at least be able to acknowledge the reality of Iraq: you're not winning, you're not building a new nation, and staying the course will not help the situation in any way, shape or form.

[Gambit]

SciFi, Everybody, chill. If you'll read TFA you will see a line that says:

"We are carefully reviewing disclosure procedures and criteria concerning any nuclear information that could be misused by terrorists," said FBI agent Lirpa Sloof.

Spell that agent's name backwards, then go look at a calendar. Sheesh.

(But I ordered a copy anyway. Been looking for an excuse...)

[SiFi]

Originally Posted by Gambit

SciFi, Everybody, chill. If you'll read TFA you will see a line that says:

Spell that agent's name backwards, then go look at a calendar. Sheesh.

(But I ordered a copy anyway. Been looking for an excuse...)

Well, crap. I'll say it, I overreacted, and didn't pay attention. However, the camel's back remains broken.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

He has a point. Would another, completely different candidate had a different response to 9/11? Or, would another, completely different candidate really made any difference since the 2004 election?

And like he (and I) said, there's no guarantee things would've been any different with someone else winning the presidency, and again as we've both said, if you don't have the support of Congress there isn't a great deal you can do. Yes, Bush as a person is not very intelligent. But at the same time, can you tell me definitely that Edwards wouldn't have done the same things he has? There's always the chance that he might not have gone into Iraq after Afghanistan. But Afghanistan, as a reactionary measure to 9/11, could be argued as a sure bet.

And any chance to have had real information and the possibility of not being lied into a war is better than what actually happened. I agree on you with Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And on the point I made on censorship: yes, those are regional implementations, this I understand. What I should have clarified was that the majority of those texts were banned for unsavoury content as would be seen under Christian morality. Ours is NO LESS a Christian state than the one to the south.

No, both countries are secular states, that both happen to have a high proportion of christians living in them. The main difference is that Canada doesn't have a mad zealot trying to remake the country in the bible's violent, perverted image.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

Your political views aside, friggin Jester was over there, man! Jeez.

I'm glad he's back and all right, but the reality of war is that people die. Just because someone we care about was over there in the middle of it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of his situation.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And in some ways it's not like our peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is going remarkably well. The only difference is that I don't think we have a majority of the population pissed off at us as well.

That's certainly a better situation than in Iraq, though yes, we are having problems. Thing is, at least there we're operating under the auspices of the UN. After all, dying in a house fire is a hideous fate. Does that mean we should never discuss fire safety, never think of preventative measures, lest mere mention of it bring it about?

Originally Posted by Raiyven

You're talking about problems in Congress as if it's the only political structure that has any corruption. I don't even *need* to point out the fallacy there. As immaterial and subjective as the concept is, selfishness is simply a human trait. Again, look at home: sponsorship scandal? Was that not a pet project in which large amounts of money were re-routed somewhere?

With a paper trail, and with accountability. This is 4 billion disappearing with not trace at all. Plus many billions more lost to lack of oversight.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

I'm having a hard time viewing much of your argument with academic objectivity because some of it is rooted in narrow bias. I'm not trying to ignore the things you're presenting, but rather that they are not unique to the US, and just on speculation there is no guarantee that, given 9/11 as an circumstance, reactionary measures following would have been any different.

Again, any possiblity that maybe something different might have happened, as opposed to what we can look back on and see did happen.

Yes, I am biased. I am biased against war in any form, against killing in any form. War is never a good answer to any question ever, and should never be seen as more than an evil that has become necessary through the failure of diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Raiyven

And on Iraq again: say tomorrow the Admin says 'alright, thats it, we're done here'. You think demobilization will happen in a day? Besides, it's partially evident that radical elements may have some degree of popular support. The US leaves, you have a bloody coup, civilians die, and the whole region destabilizes further. Yes, I think it's awful that people are dying over there, of all nationalities. But with a US-backed government in place there, again, while not entirely stable it is still FAR more predictable than some radical ass in a top hat that would take its place should the US demobilize.

No, but every day that the groundwork is not layed is one more day that the troops over there need to be vulnerable.

The longer the US stays there, the more popular the radical elements could become. When the US leaves, there'll be a bloody coup anyway.

[Raiyven]

Dammit Gryph why'd you have to go post while I'm writing my non-catchy, long-winded response?

Originally Posted by SiFi

No, both countries are secular states, that both happen to have a high proportion of christians living in them. The main difference is that Canada doesn't have a mad zealot trying to remake the country in the bible's violent, perverted image.

Sorry that was the point I was making, I didn't phrase it correctly. However, despite a notable difference that Christianity is not intimately tied to national identity (I hear God Help Canada more than God Bless), that religion is still closely associated with the ruling party and figure.

The greatest example is the Conservative attitudes against same-sex union. In this manner, though same-sex union was ruled constitutional across (most if not all of) the country, the Conservatives pushed to reopen the issue.

"During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue...The motion calls on the government to "introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''"

Source: CBC News, 7 December 2006

Why reopen the debate if not to challenge it? Call me crazy, but there is no sense in reopening an issue you support. And 'traditional' as a descriptor is horribly loaded. However, even at that time, opposition parties were voting against reopening the issue: "But the majority of Liberals are expected to oppose the motion and both the Bloc and NDP are forcing their members to vote against it..."

Now, you could view this in the idealistic context of progressive thinking, or the slightly more realistic context political maneuvering by the opposing parties. The Liberals and NDP, as the party that passed Bill C-38 and the socially progressive party respectively, have the most intrinsic desires to oppose it. The Bloc... honestly I don't know, but it's really immaterial. However, thankfully:

"The government's motion to repeal gay marriage was ultimately defeated 175-123 last December and after the vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters: "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

Harper had previously agreed to leave the matter settled regardless of the vote.

Source: The Globe and Mail, 2 April 2007

I had the pro/anti discussion with people at work and we could find no practical reason to be against it. It is not any unfathomable secret that Bible+Gay=Do Not Want. If we do not have a practical reason of state for being against it, tell me what's left? Arguments on the structure of a marriage are derived from Christian belief that it can only be between a man and woman.

Now, I won't succumb to simplistic anti-Christian urges in citing the outside possibility of Harper's cancellation of daycare programs as being a small-'c' step backwards. If I were to look at it solely through an unacademic eye without definitive proof I could argue that it inevitably forces a parent to care for their child directly, and that it carries the implication of keeping the mother at home in that capacity. This is, however, circumstantial and entirely subject to my personal opinion over objective analysis supported by definitive proofs, so I won't stand behind this argument that I have heard a number of times without any real point.

And I wouldn't go throwing the word zealot around just yet. What you have to remember first is that God and Christianity have *long* been a part of the American political ethnos; 'God Bless America' has been a catchphrase for an eon. While yes, church and state as institutions are separate, Christianity and state are not always. We see this here at home. While Bill C-38 was being argued over the first time, a public opinion poll revealed that "Slightly more than half – 52 per cent – of the 1,203 respondents said they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

Source: CBC News, 10 April 2005

Yes, I'm well aware there are 34 or so million people living in this country. Yes, I'm also well aware of the fallibility of polls. However, what's still telling is that with respect to available information (though I haven't had the time to pull up academic discourse) there is ample evidence to *strongly suggest, though not definitively prove* (as I will not fully stand behind an argument without appropriate time to research it) that conservatism vis-a-vis Christian values are as much a part of decisions made on domestic policy here as in the US.

Originally Posted by SiFi

I'm glad he's back and all right, but the reality of war is that people die. Just because someone we care about was over there in the middle of it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of his situation.

I never suggested we should. I was more hoping that you would take that as a hint that he and his who are on this board (though not lately. Where are you, Jester and Mrs Jester?) might or might not appreciate the trivialization of 'foreign policy' as it came at him at 1200m/s during his tour of duty. Am I telling you to shut up? No, just that there are better places to yell and scream.

N.B.: If Jester shows up and tells us he doesn't care, disregard this statement.

Originally Posted by SiFi

Yes, I am biased. I am biased against war in any form, against killing in any form. War is never a good answer to any question ever, and should never be seen as more than an evil that has become necessary through the failure of diplomacy.

From your initial post this wasn't abundantly clear. I was seeing a very general reinvented wheel of 'boo America'. You referred to war once as, 'the war'. Hey, I share your sentiments just the same. The bias I was referring to was moreso me looking at your first post as profoundly anti-American rant where what you were presenting in some very notable ways is applicable to more than just one country.

Am I arguing with what you have said? No. Am I arguing with how you have presented it? Yes. Offer a solution like Nutz did with his mention of the UAE trying to get middle-eastern states together. While that in practice may not necessarily work, it's still an example of saying 'here is what is wrong, here is how we could improve things' over 'here is what is wrong, and goddammit, it's wrong'.

The moral of the story? Scrutinize your sources. Someone lock this thread, I have a 40-page undergraduate thesis project to be working on ;D

[Raiyven]

lol!
*digs out Adventures of TRON for his Atari 2600*

[Aluscia]

.... If that agent's name is real, I will laugh forever~

The problem that the US forces in Iraq faces is not only the vaccuum of power left by their departure, but the overwhelming belief in the rest of the world that Iraq is the US' problem to face alone. I can't say that I don't share some of that sentiment, but in reality, we're all world players (or try to be). I don't see how one nation can bear the future of a nation like Iraq, despite the fact that it was their actions that set into motion change. Be it as it may, the US is one of the few world super-powers spending money and lives on trying for an ideal (as misguided or maligned as it may be). I honestly don't think trying to create a democratic future for the Middle-East is a bad thing, I just disagree with the methodology. Think of all the Crusades... do you think Islam is just going to give up their ways and accept western doctrine and systems of rule? What Iraq needs most right now is support from the muslim world so the pressure can come off the "western devils" a little bit. As a Canadian who staunchly opposed both the Afghani and Iraqi invasions, ultimately I have to give my support for the people that put their lives on the line out there to further the effort of peace, even if I disagree with the motives of the administrations who sent the troops in.

Censorship in any form is bad. I don't think there is a single thing that should be omitted from history, or public eye in some form or another. Sure, "phase in" more graphic forms of media over age as the human mind grows and matures to a point where it can accept it as fiction, but don't deny it outright. There is a place to understand everything, and certainly a right to view everything... Take, for example, if we weren't allowed to view anything about the Third Reich starting tomorrow. We (who already studied history, have parents/grandparents who were in the war) wouldn't forget or lose the understanding of the depths of mob-mentality and human depravity that was taught by WWII Germany, but future generations would lose that. All it would take after that is a similarly-minded individual with incredible influence and public support to announce that jews are the reason for the world's strife (and national decline) and start another one.

In conclusion (sorry for the multitudinous thoughts here..), vote Cthulhu for 2008. Why choose between lesser evils?