@ixzion - erm, i think you're building up my point here. but ok. I'd really rather you didn't pretend to be lord over what i know. and you needn't remind me i'm an outsider, i'm quite happy to be!! but it would be nice if you Could see our point. basically - like the gnasher said... except ..


There, fixed. ^^

Is it possible to be insane and reasonable?



I said that he either has a good mind and voted for the Act or he doesn't have one and voted for the Act. Either way, the same outcome occured.



I don't have to pretend to be lord over what you know. Without a tone of arrogance, I believe that I know substantially more than you do here. And I also understand that you would probably understand much more than I do about Canadian law and history than I would. Our positions would be switched. I am an outsider to Canadian politics.

What I seem to get is that a lot of people are happy that he has a "good" mind, but haven't researched any of his policies. What good is a man with a good mind if he pushes through the same agendas as before?

I know y'all are happy. If you want to be happy, then be so. But I recognize the facade, so I can't be. That's what it boils down to.

The first thing you learn when what occupies every single cargo in your country is a terrible, hateful politician, is you never trust a man's policies, because they don't mean sh*t.

You find the one you think has a better mind (which is, ohgod, very different from 'better campaign' and 'better platform and promises'), and you elect him, and you see what he does as you go along.

I say this out of experience, really. ^^

At the very least, all I'll say for now is that someone with a good mind might be able to see why you make a decision against a consensus, even against your own preferences. Someone who does not have a good mind is dogmatic and unquestioning (although I am open to argument on this definition ). If Obama voted for the Patriot Act, I believe that he had at least some reasonable motivation other than dogma BECAUSE he has a good mind. So then the question is was his motivation for his own gain, for future gain down the road, because he can see something positive about the patriot act that other liberal or libertarian thinkers cannot, etc. and this is where I question your knowledge on his motivations. In other words Ixzion, why do YOU think Obama would vote for the Patriot Act? Do YOU really think he didn't have a good mind to make the decision or do you think he had a different motivation? Has he ever defended his actions and if so what are your arguments against his SPECIFIC defenses rather than simply saying dogmatically that ANYONE who votes for the patriot act must be doing something wrong without first seeking to understand why they would do that.

*patiently awaits the repeal of the patriot act*

I would also like to state that for the record Obama is half black (no real mention of him being part Caucasian). I guess that makes him African American in the purest sense of the word ironically (or African European if you want to get technical, since a lot of people seem to forget about the true Americans). But I hate all the uproar about his race. He's the first black president ... and this makes him different from other politicians how? Oh wait it doesn't, because race doesn't make a difference (so much for being color-blind I guess).

Also I think this is relevant http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ . So he is getting something done at least, and fairly quickly as well. Not to mention this http://www.kottke.org/09/01/the-country ... tstxt-file . It would seem Change might end up being more than a campaign slogan this time around. Now if only we could get rid of this terrorism bullsh*t (the fearmongering, not the act as that will always be around) America might actually be worth living in again . Of course there is the whole economy thing, but I think some of it is not letting capitalism run its true course and let bad companies that make terrible business decisions die.

I say we all get together and demand congress give us a bailout from our economic situation. Surely the country can't survive without its people right (because obviously we couldn't survive without the banking or American Car industry, on no).

Also Relevant http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ed-for-it/

Are you sarcastically saying that people are being hypocritical with your color blind comment? I'm not sure I understand what you mean about race not making a difference.

Race doesn't have to make a difference in his ability to lead for it to make a difference in what it genuinely means that a (at least half) black man has been voted president in this country. You do recognize that though, right?

But I do agree that it seems largely overlooked that he is half white and the reason that I myself thing everyone is missing the real story is because it is far more telling that a bi-racial man is our president. It will forever be an argument against all the racist parents that say the races shouldn't mix because the kids will be at a disadvantage. The beautiful response will forever be, "what disadvantage pessimist, they can even become president". So I really wish, not simply for accuracy, but for genuine inspiration, that people would celebrate not his blackness, and not his whiteness, but his bi-racialness.

Now, if you look at his family. His wife is in fact what we think of when we classify as "african american". To my knowledge her parents are both black and they not from Africa recently but from africans that have been here since slavery and had to struggle though all that. Along with their daughters who are 3/4 black, I think that it will be tremendously significant social and culturally for this country to see a black first family in the white house everyday, and I welcome that.

@ixzion - actually did you know most of american history is complete fiction? that doesn't have much to do with anything, just an amusing tidbit on the side << ... i suppose it's all down to personal opinion which i can respect. but i really hope you get proved wrong (though i'm sure you do too) i think things will change. maybe not do everything everyone has always wanted but i really don't think he will be as globally disliked as bush has been. if all obama ever is, is a poster boy - then at least take it for the good it will do you eh.

I guess, but eh. It's not like anything has been stopping a non white guy from being president in recent years, I would honestly be more surprised if we had a third party president than a 'minority' one. But hurray for having the first man of 'color' in the white house.

I have hope he will run our country well, though still not too happy about his stance on terrorism, but I guess at least he's aiming in the right direction for our constant war effort. I guess I just don't see the huge victory as minorities have been prominent figures in politics for years, eventually one would become president, and given the peaceful transfer of power for centuries in this country I don't see why the outcome would be any different.

So yeah it's somewhat significant, but sound-byte significant and no more, and I agree him being mixed race is even more significant (though I wonder if any Presidents were part Native American, I bet no one would remember that, they've been getting shafted for hundreds of years now).



I do, I do. Which is why I hate it with a burning passion, but as long as 'terrorism' is a 'constant' threat I don't see it going away. Slowly Innocent until proven guilty is becoming guilty until proven innocent it seems. I'm still waiting for the Threat level to at least go down to Yellow, or what is the point of having the lower levels. I bet we'll never see Blue again, if indeed it was ever at that level.

And the only thing the Patriot Act does it give the government free reign to spy on its people. Sure that might help you catch more 'terrorists', but is it worth the invasion of privacy, outright slap in the face to the 1st and 4th amendments, and the fact that if the terrorists know you're listening, don't you think they plan for that. If computer security has taught me anything, any security can be broken, and the best security to have is the one that is least intrusive and keeps breech damage to a minimum. So while he was reluctant to vote for the compromise, I would like to see him try to abolish the current Patriot act. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Plus I think the government should have all it needs in publicly available information, with the current blogging craze, without needing to record our cell phone conversations.

Terrorism creates fear, and the government in turns feeds on that fear to control its people. Fear is a lucrative industry indeed. So certainly we should have security, but I think it could be orders of magnitude leaner.

EDIT-
Well a lot of history is half truths, it's told by the point of view of the victors most of the time.

As for change he's off to a decent start, but we'll see how long this momentum lasts. Already his quick attempt at dismantling of gitmo is having issues, since some of the prisoners actually are war criminals. But I think if he accomplishes nothing else he should at least bring some more transparency to the government (I think the economy is helping as well, as when business and such start failing, people start investigating where the money really goes).

Yes, I do understand that the history of one's own country is a) painted by the victors and b) usually biased in favor of one's own country. But you can't deny the ideas expressed, even if inaccurate.

If Obama can prove me wrong, which he won't, then I'll be the first one to get down on my knees and join the Obama sucklefest.

And with this, I'm dropping out of the topic. I never like arguing about politics because it's like arguing against a brick wall and seeing who tires out first.

I'm your huckleberry.

Something a friend of mine wrote on the subject.
It is not unreasonable to hope, Ixz, if you are aware enough to not expect.
In fact, perhaps, it is wise.