Current US Administration

[Raiyven]

Nutz, that's a neat find. If middle eastern countries were able to do that then things would take an impressive turn.

One of their largest obstacles though is religious factionalism; if the sects were able to cooperate, it would make things easier.

And why can't we ever start arguments on something in my field of research? Goddamn SOMEBODY start a sociocultural argument on the archaic/classical mediterranean or the soviet union already.

[LoS-NutzholzWolf]

I would have to get my room-mate to join the boards to talk about the Soviet military and current Russian subs. He has been working on a book that documents all Russian and US naval ships. He has gone as far back as WW2. There is still a lot more to input and even more he will have to start digging for that he couldn't find when he first put the ship in.

[Raiyven]

That's interesting, tell him to come on by
I don't know jack about Soviet naval equipment, but always willing to be educated ;D

I wouldn't be surprised if he's having difficulty with more modern equipment; the Putin administration has in many ways curtailed the flow of information (sensitive and non) in the last few years in a very 1930s way. Censorship being a big one, but aside I think one of my instructors mentioned that access to archived, declassified information is more difficult (though not impossible) now as opposed to, say, 10 years ago.

If he's interested I could ask some of my contacts in the department here about getting hold of some of the information; we have a number of military historians here who might have documents from before the current period of increased censorship

[Ghryphen]

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...)

The first thing I did was Google it and there wasn't another single source about it and figured it was fake. I didn't think about the date, I hate sites that do their april fools early :/

[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

[Ghryphen]

I won't lock the thread unless you really feel that you guys are going to chase each other off the board.

Just keep in mind that political discussion, like religion, is a very volatile subject and people are hardly likely to concede to the another persons views.

So just watch any personal insults and remember we are friends here no matter our political views.

[Raiyven]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

I won't lock the thread unless you really feel that you guys are going to chase each other off the board.

Just keep in mind that political discussion, like religion, is a very volatile subject and people are hardly likely to concede to the another persons views.

So just watch any personal insults and remember we are friends here no matter our political views.

lol I was hoping you wouldn't lock it anyway, I was joking

I am willing to concede only on someone's view in the face of overwhelming evidence, or maybe on something fun, like the relative tastiness of various treats or mixed beverages. Personally, my fiancee's uncle's creations vs anything else is a good topic for discussion.

Besides, if there are gonna be personal insults exchanged, SiFi will tell me next time he sees me. (thursday?)

[Stang]

And I thought Silver could write up a storm. Would be interesting to see a write off between you 2 .

[Raiyven]

Gimme a topic for discussion and a week to research it

NB: Preferably something... old?

[Cerberus]

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
a)huh? Everything a President does is subject to review to the other two branches. If the people are unhappy, I would think their representatives, or the Judicial Branch would make changes.

-he started a war for the sake of stealing oil\
b)What oil? Who's getting oil, have you checked the price of gas? I was there and they aren't selling that oil to us or anyone else for that matter.

-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
c) Now how exactly did the President personally F-up Fema?

-he's advocated torture
d) Who hasn't? We should be torturing them. You wouldn't be so quick to judge if your childs life was saved because some terrorist got bamboo under his fingernails. We have to be ruthless to win this war, not pussywhipped. The NME doesn't respect pussywhipped. This isn't college theology, or a videogame.

-he's made numerous signing statements intended to enhance his own personal power
d.5) Name three

-he's suspended Habeus Corpus
e) I believe this was just reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and I am personally wondering why we havn't just tortured them until they talk, and then hung them.

[Raiyven]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

This isn't college theology

You see that, right there? That's me getting served.



Sorry Jester

EDIT: Well, I think it's me getting served.

EDIT: If I am getting served, someone serve me some coffee, my cup is empty.

[SiFi]

That last request almost makes me think it's a joke, Cerberus. So, before I post my response, is it a joke? I'm too tired right now to tell the difference.

[Cerberus]

I not serving anyone. My point is that minds in college or freshly out of college tend to have a narrow perspective on world views. By that I mean they believe that the worlds problems can be solved logically and morally. Or at least they should be. Unfortunately that is never the case. They are solved by blood and death. And that will probably be the case as long as there are major conflicting religions in the world.
BTW, I wasn't directing that comment at anyone specifically. I am just stereotyping!

I am curious to see what the President has put in place that enhances his "personal" power though.

And since this thread was cooling off, I wanted to throw some opposition back in here. Let me just say this tho... I am by no means an avid Bush supporter, I just don't hop on the bash Bush bandwagon. Simply becuase I don't believe there is anyone else available that could do any better. The current world situation will never be solved by hand wringing and walking the tight rope of morality.

[Gambit]

Hey, Jester, I agree with most of what you're saying here, but there are a few little details-- like this:

e) I believe this was just reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and I am personally wondering why we havn't just tortured them until they talk, and then hung them.

I don't think the problem is with doing this - at least to the deserving - but we gotta make sure we got the right people.

[Cerberus]

Yeah, there is always the chance we could have the wrong guy. But there is guilt by association too..