quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ...if you had an offer of work ...
As I noted above, this may be more problematic than it appears on the surface. There seem to be many such pitfalls that remain invisible until one tries to traverse them.
---
Edited to add: Of course, there are also invisible potential workarounds, such as some jobs being covered as free trade items under NAFTA. Things at Immigration Canada have gotten both tighter and looser over the last few years, depending on which group one fits into.
My point isn't that it is impossible. My point also isn't that it is necessarily hard, at least not if one has connections who have worked around the system before and know the ins and outs relatively cold, and have a vested interest in getting you over.
My point such as it is is that the average person who appears to be a pretty straightforward case (and, perhaps, who should be a straightforward case) has a good chance of being surprised by the process.
In assessing systems, I am interested in group experiences, not just individual cases. In that we agree, Mucus. But in order to assess groups, one has to know the denominators, and they have to be the appropriate ones. I'm not sure the appropriate denominators have been brought to this discussion, and it will take me some time to play about with it to figure that out to my satisfaction. I'll try to do it this weekend.
Meanwhile, anyone who has successfully passed through Canadian immigration has my congratulations [regardless of why or how they made the trip. It is a lovely country.]
posted
The only reason people move to Canada from other parts of the world is its proximity to the United States. Why would anyone move from the United States to Canada?
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is totally random, but my wife got detained at the Canadian border once and had to go through this huge ordeal because her friend that was with her had caffiene pills that they insisted were illegal in Canada. The first gas station they stopped at - in Canada - sold them at the counter.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll extend the totally random tangent even further. The secret to getting into the U.S. from Canada (probably vice versa, too) is to know the hockey scores.
I was in Montreal with my dad, trying to see a hockey game. We failed, but ended up in a bar right next to the arena.
The next morning, we came back to NY, and the border crossing went like this:
Border Guard: "What was your purpose for visiting Canada?" Us: "We tried to get into the hockey game. We couldn't find tickets, so we went to a bar nearby." Border Guard: *perks up* "Alright. What who played, and what was the score?" Us: "Habs against Rangers, Habs won in overtime 5-4" Border Guard: "Have a nice day."
The quickest border crossing I've ever had.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: The only reason people move to Canada from other parts of the world is its proximity to the United States. Why would anyone move from the United States to Canada?
Don't ask me. My grandma's family left Quebec to find work after their house burned down and three of their 11 children died in the fire.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: As I noted above, this may be more problematic than it appears on the surface.
This is true, I was narrowly addressing the "if" I had quoted.
quote:... at least not if one has connections who have worked around the system before and know the ins and outs relatively cold, and have a vested interest in getting you over.
Definitely, things are a lot easier if you can go through as one of the family classes rather than a skilled worker class on your own.
quote:In that we agree, Mucus. But in order to assess groups, one has to know the denominators, and they have to be the appropriate ones. I'm not sure the appropriate denominators have been brought to this discussion, and it will take me some time to play about with it to figure that out to my satisfaction. I'll try to do it this weekend.
Thanks. I may not have time to address the issue directly on the weekend due to the new year celebrations but I will definitely keep an eye out.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, you are missing at least the point I am trying to make. Even if Canada had no restictions on immigration, do you really think it practical or good for all the people whose lives would be worse under Republican leadership to pick up and leave their homes and become refugees?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Thanks. I may not have time to address the issue directly on the weekend due to the new year celebrations but I will definitely keep an eye out.
No worries. (And Happy New Year!) It can be a long, meandering, hiccup-y conversation. They are often the best kind.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: The only reason people move to Canada from other parts of the world is its proximity to the United States.
Not really, especially if you're in a minority group. We still have links to the rest of the Common-wealth and the French-speaking world through Quebec even if you aren't (or magnify the appeal if you are).
You can usually reverse-engineer why a minority would want to immigrate based on articles like what you linked before.
quote:Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, asserted that Canada has "a disproportionate number of al-Qaida. ... because of their very liberal immigration laws (and) because of how political asylum is granted so easily."
Translation: We don't profile quite as much as the States and we don't detain people quite as much.
quote:And Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana said many Canadian immigrants don't share "traditional Canadian values."
Translation: We don't go for the melting pot concept but do go for Trudeau's multiculturalism, which means that minorities such as Chinese, South Asians, or Middle Eastern are under much less religious and cultural pressure to assimilate. For example, IIRC, Chinese Canadians are something like 20% less religious than Chinese Americans.
There are policies like same-sex marriage, universal health care, lower unemployment rates, welfare, etc. as well that have to be taken into account.
But in general, I would say that the Canadian immigration system has done quite well since Trudeau and despite strong pressure from America after 9/11 and a current Conservative government. I think that deserves credit despite problems (such as waiting lists that I do wish would be fixed, being pro-immigration).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Even if Canada had no restictions on immigration, do you really think it practical or good for all the people whose lives would be worse under Republican leadership to pick up and leave their homes and become refugees?
No. But I do think that it would be practical for Canada to immigrate at least as many of the people that wish to immigrate as possible*. As Lisa points out, I don't think the potential pool of people per year will be that huge, since it didn't seem that overwhelming under Bush.
* Which I think roughly covers our moral responsibility as Canadians in shifting votes from a moderate Republican candidate toward Palin. I would note that Samantha Bee and Jason Jones are both Canadians and I'm sure they've mocked Palin too at some point.
Maybe we should nail down precisely what the result of a Palin victory would be (domestic and foreign), the scope of her support, and the margin of our responsibility as Canadians that enjoy to mock Palin before going further into the hypothetical response that a Canadian government should take.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, if you recall, I am responding to comments like this:
Regarding Palin getting votes and becoming president: "It seems to me that there are significant advantages to that."
And:
quote:Depends on your definition of "fail." I'm not fan of the States, but I still think the US system is strong enough to not spontaneously collapse in the case of a Palin presidency. Rather, you'd get something like Bush, a slow but significant decline in US fortunes.
And that could definitely play into Canadian hands. For example, from what I understand the infusion of Loyalists during the Revolutionary War, the underground railway during the US Civil War, and the draft dodgers during Vietnam were actually beneficial for the Canadian economy. Especially in the last since they tended to be disproportionately college-educated, middle-class, and well, pacifists.
Bush definitely aided Liberal party fortunes in Canada as they gained significant mileage by "not being like Bush" (as compared with the conservatives). There was also a significant rise in the number of people that identify as non-religious which was another bonus.
Don't get me wrong, things would be much much better with a competent left-wing American leader. However, if the choice has to be between a "moderate" Republican and a Palin, I gotta say that a President Palin has many attractive benefits.
In other words, screw the US, we'll drain off their college-educated middle class.
Also screw the rest of the world as goodness knows what nifty new foreign policy our right wing leaders could cook up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin's Alaskan. I wouldn't say a war with Canada would be out of the question. Of course, Canada would probably just let us have Alberta if we asked nicely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: You're ignoring the fact that I've pretty consistently been of the opinion that a decline in US power would actually be beneficial to the rest of the world, particularly for places *not* Canada like in Asia or the Middle East.
Also, this is after this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think electing Palin will send us further in that direction. And if we have to screw with the country for a couple years to learn a hard lesson, then fine. America is a country that continually forgets past mistakes and must commit them again to relearn from them. I guess it's just that time again.
posted
The US may "decline in power" but I don't think that means what you think it means. We would - especially with right-wing leadership - do a lot of nasty thrashing about on the way. We are a long way from not being a military power. An unstable US would be really ugly.
Fortunately, I doubt that most of your fellow citizens are as indifferent to the hardships of US citizens as you are.
Regarding Lyrhawn, didn't we just do that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're ignoring the fact that I've pretty consistently been of the opinion that a decline in US power would actually be beneficial to the rest of the world, particularly for places *not* Canada like in Asia or the Middle East.
I might be right there with you if not for the problem of answering the question, "Who fills that gap if America is gone?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Palin's Alaskan. I wouldn't say a war with Canada would be out of the question. Of course, Canada would probably just let us have Alberta if we asked nicely.
Alberta may suck it is however our sugerdaddy, we need it to have nice stuff.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I might be right there with you if not for the problem of answering the question, "Who fills that gap if America is gone?"
No one, I figure. Despite the "threat" hype from the US press, China has its own problems to overcome and no one else is remotely there yet either.
The US may just recede from superpower status to being a larger power in a multi-polar world where broad coalitions of powers need to negotiate with each other in order to get things done. It may be the case that no one will be able to unilaterally pull something ala the Iraq War ... I think I'd like that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Palin's Alaskan. I wouldn't say a war with Canada would be out of the question. Of course, Canada would probably just let us have Alberta if we asked nicely.
Alberta may suck it is however our sugerdaddy, we need it to have nice stuff.
Alberta sounds vaguely pimpish...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one in the middle east, Mucus? That seems...well, incredibly hopeful to me. And, of course, the Iraq War wasn't unilateral. It wasn't broadly lateral, of course, but that's hardly the same thing at all. There's no need for hyperbole; the Iraq War has more than enough problems already.
As for the hype threat press, I suppose to people in Canada it's hype. People in Taiwan or India or Australia or Japan or South Korea might feel a bit differently, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both China and Russia have elements that see a power-vacuum caused by US decline as a way of gaining status--that would allow them to whitewash their own internal problems.
Iran longs to be a power in the mid-East, and if the US quit the area, including its support of Israel there would be a lot of fighting and problems as Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia fought over being the areas main power.
A loss of US as a superpower may also drive the EU into being a replacement, though its so fragmented that such a possibility seems unlikely.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
India, South Korea, and Australia do not percieve China as a regional threat.
IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus wasn't talking about the US quitting any area entirely, I'm sure, but still...it would be nice if such a thing would lead to a wide spread of power throughout the world among all its members, but I just don't think history really bears that out. Someone is always dominant in any given region.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The current political wind is blowing in the direction of the common man. The common man puts notes on his hand. Obama is certainly above writing on his hand, but the public knows, without a teleprompter, he's a bunch of "Oh, Uh, Um's"
Robert Gibbs fell for the trap. His mockery only made the Obama administration look more elitist and out of touch. Keep it up....please.
The hand note writing public is nearing election day.
Palin proves herself smarter...she needs a short list of words. The president needs every word written for him.
posted
Most of us don't have a problem with the oh, uh, ums so long as the words in between them are good. I think that's the difference between say, Bush, Palin, and Obama.
Bush fumbled his way through a sentence, but what bothered you wasn't the stuttery noises, it was that when he actually landed on a word, and then strung them together, what he created was often either ridiculous, amusing, or incomprehensible.
For Palin, like for Bush, there are a lot of stock phrases, and hell, even her prepared statements are weird as all hell sometimes. Remember her two "I'm stepping down as governor" speeches? About the frost heaves and vicious rivers or whatever. Some see it as folksy charm, and some see that when you actually look at what she's saying, there isn't much there. Form without substance.
For Obama, yes, when he's unscripted, you do sometimes, maybe often even, get a lot of ums, and uhs, and his sentences can be a little meandering, but most of us don't care because it looks and sounds like he's actually thinking about what's being asked of him, and when you put together the words between the pauses, you usually get something very, very good.
There's a difference between style and content, and I think you, malanthrop, and many others (I might even lump Dark Knight in here, but he hasn't said enough for me to get a full read on how he feels) are trying to blur that line in order to cast aspersions.
See, Clinton usually had both. He could speak extemporaneously and have it come off flawlessly both in content and delivery. Palin and Bush tended to fall back on stock phrases and truisms. "America good." "Praise Jesus." That sort of thing. Stuff you can't possibly go wrong with. And when they venture outside their comfort zone, you get some of Bush's zanier speeches, or for Palin, you get the Couric interview and numerous things since. Their delivery is usually pretty clear, but the content is out of left field.
For Obama, when he's prepared he delivers a great speech. When he's going off the cuff, the delivery isn't nearly as smooth as Clinton's, but the answers are usually chock full of great stuff, and there are numerous examples of it out there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
While he's careful in his annunciation with "Pakeestaan" or "Copenhaaagen", he can't quite get corpsman right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0 The commander and chief should know how to pronounce military lifesavers correctly. In conversation he would certainly pronounce corpsman correctly but when giving a speech, he's reading words. Obama would not say "corps man" in everyday conversation when speaking from the heart. In a speech, he's reading words...a collection of letters. If the words he was reading were his own, he would pronounce them correctly. He's an actor...an empty suit.
Palin didn't have a teleprompter...she had a few words on her hand to remind her to address the important principles. You ridicule a woman who needs one word to give a speech and defend the man who's speeches break down when every word isn't presented to him by a speech writer. Palin's hand crib note speech wasn't full of oh's and um's or delays awaiting teleprompter repair.
There's a difference between a meteorologist and the person who reads your weather report. The common viewer can only tell the difference when the teleprompter breaks down during the morning forecast. Some stations hire meteorologists to announce the days weather, others hire pretty faces to read the meteorologist's predictions.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: India, South Korea, and Australia do not percieve China as a regional threat.
I don't believe that's true. I'd toss Japan, Pakistan, and maybe even Russia on that list too. And if not right now, then certainly in the future. We aren't paying as much attention to it because we aren't really scared of China, but regionally, they're in the midst of a massive arms build up.
When your neighbor is growing at a massive clip economically, and starts to put billions and billions more into military spending, more than any regional neighbor, you have to ask yourself two questions, in this sequence:
1. Who are they afraid of? Well, who? Japan and Russia I guess are the dominant military powers in the region, but neither of them have anything to gain in invading China. Afterall, Japan has the technology, and Russia has the natural resources. China's main advantage right now is manpower.
2. So if they aren't afraid of anyone, why do they need a massive build up in military strength? If not for defense, then what?
I'm not saying they're planning anything. Frankly, I highly doubt it. But any rational regional leader would have to be alarmed by such a build up. China is consuming at a voracious rate with no end in sight, and all they are really missing for a self-sustaining loop is more natural resources, and technical expertise. Both are right on their doorsteps. If I'm Russia, South Korea or Japan, that's sure as heck what I'm thinking. And with nuclear India and Pakistan next door, I'm keeping an eye on them too.
If they don't perceive China as a regional threat, they're seriously neglected their own national defense.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find Obama's speeches without teleprompters much more deliberate sounding. If you notice he likes to take long pauses between phrases or sentences to at least look like hes putting thought into how his phrasing is going to sound. Sure he may say um every once in a while but at the end of the day at least he sounds like hes thinking about what to say next instead of repeating a bunch of memorized phrases and political rhetoric even if that's what it really is.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrop, do have any evidence that President Obama has his speeches "presented" to him? Any evidence at all that he has less input into his speeches than other presidents?
Mucus, how long a decline do you think we will need before we no longer have the capability to be dangerous. Who do you think will be more dangerous a leader in the meantime? Who do you think will be more likely to unilaterally start wars an Obama or a Palin? Who do you think will be more likely to look for military solutions rather than diplomacy?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I find Obama's speeches without teleprompters much more deliberate sounding. If you notice he likes to take long pauses between phrases or sentences to at least look like hes putting thought into how his phrasing is going to sound. Sure he may say um every once in a while but at the end of the day at least he sounds like hes thinking about what to say next instead of repeating a bunch of memorized phrases and political rhetoric even if that's what it really is.
Bush and Palin aren't the greatest speakers but you know they are speaking from the heart. We have all, in retrospect, thought..."I should've said this or that". Palin and Bush speak, Obama makes speeches based upon carefully weighed political calculations.
Obama still hasn't picked a church despite being a "lifelong christian" He doesn't want to offend the Protestants voting block so he remains ambiguous. He's announced he gets morning scriptures to reflect from many faiths.
Being "agnostic" is the religious equivalent of "moderate". I would trust a self proclaimed atheist over an agnostic. I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And, of course, the Iraq War wasn't unilateral. It wasn't broadly lateral, of course ...
Terminology is of course, a matter of opinion.
quote: ... Dean has been verbally pounding Congress, including some of his Democratic rivals, and Bush for what he sees as a unilateral strike against Iraq.
quote:Earlier this year, the United States gave up on getting approval from the United Nations Security Council to invade Iraq and acted without it. Now Washington is running Iraq and its oil fields but wants the U.N.'s seal of acceptance. The Security Council is expected to vote today to give that approval. Most Council members remain understandably unhappy with the unilateral nature of the occupation but recognize that trying to block it is futile.
When both the American media and the American opposition to the war used the word "unilateral" to describe the war at the time (or at least some of the time), I don't feel much problem with using it as a Canadian
quote:No one in the middle east, Mucus? That seems...well, incredibly hopeful to me.
Keep in mind the second paragraph of my response. For sure there will be regional powers that relatively rise as the US declines. But the question I was answering (it seems I was unclear) was whether a different power will fill the gap of a superpower that can unilaterally and preemptively attack random countries, a role that the US currently occupies (occupied recently? perhaps up for debate).
On China specifically: To really sum up my POV, I think China has both internal structural problems and cultural barriers that prevent it from really doing anything important. The US media is actually a bit schizophrenic on this, with part of it hyping the China threat (the 'oh noes', China is building up angle) but a different part playing up the internal unrest angle ('government can barely control its own people, balancing a fragile growth deal to bribe its own people' angle.
I actually think there is more truth to the latter. I don't have much desire to really go into this, I think Lyrhawn, you and I have gone pages on this and I think it would be ok just to "agree to disagree."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Are you inventing alignments for a new political RPG?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who do you think will be more likely to unilaterally start wars an Obama or a Palin? Who do you think will be more likely to look for military solutions rather than diplomacy?
Again you're missing something, I've quoted it once and requote it again, from the first page:
quote:Don't get me wrong, things would be much much better with a competent left-wing American leader. However, if the choice has to be between a "moderate" Republican and a Palin, I gotta say that a President Palin has many attractive benefits.
I don't think American independents are dumb enough to vote for Palin simply because big mean liberals are mocking her. I might feel sorry if I see some kids teasing a, what did she call it, a pitbull with lipstick. But out of sympathy I'm not going to go vote for a pitbull.
At most, I think that mockery could swing "moderate" Republican support to Palin in the primaries. So then you have to compare whether it would be better for the world to have a Palin that they know right off the bat is nuts or whether it is better for the world to have a "moderate" Republican that they might give the benefit of the doubt to.
You also have to factor in that Palin's main policies (on her palm) seem to be tax cuts and small government. After years of trillion dollar deficits, this is not a recipe for a government that can subsequently go out and spend a lot on a war. Ironically, big governments are preferable to fight wars.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [QUOTE] You also have to factor in that Palin's main policies (on her palm) seem to be tax cuts and small government. After years of trillion dollar deficits, this is not a recipe for a government that can subsequently go out and spend a lot on a war. Ironically, big governments are preferable to fight wars.
You have to remember that the current Republican idea of "small government" seems to primarily mean cutting public support so there's more money for pork and military spending.
We can't neglect "national security", no matter how "small" government gets. There are terrorists out there who need killing Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The current political wind is blowing in the direction of the common man. The common man puts notes on his hand. Obama is certainly above writing on his hand, but the public knows, without a teleprompter, he's a bunch of "Oh, Uh, Um's"
Robert Gibbs fell for the trap. His mockery only made the Obama administration look more elitist and out of touch. Keep it up....please.
The hand note writing public is nearing election day.
Palin proves herself smarter...she needs a short list of words. The president needs every word written for him.
I honestly thought someone had hacked Mal's account here and was parodying him, but the posts after this one are comparatively more lucid, so...
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Are you inventing alignments for a new political RPG?
RPG?
I prefer to know who I am voting for. The majority of politicians do not stand for anything besides what their political advisors recommend. I prefer clumsy, honest words over a carefully crafted political speech. I trust a woman who can give a speech based on a word written on her hand more than a man who recites a teleprompter speech that someone else wrote.
Do you think Hollywood makes the best movies in the world due to their plot lines?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:When both the American media and the American opposition to the war used the word "unilateral" to describe the war at the time (or at least some of the time), I don't feel much problem with using it as a Canadian [Smile]
Well, if you're not interested in being accurate, I can understand why you wouldn't have a problem with it.
quote:Keep in mind the second paragraph of my response. For sure there will be regional powers that relatively rise as the US declines. But the question I was answering (it seems I was unclear) was whether a different power will fill the gap of a superpower that can unilaterally and preemptively attack random countries, a role that the US currently occupies (occupied recently? perhaps up for debate).
quote:I trust a woman who can give a speech based on a word written on her hand more than a man who recites a teleprompter speech that someone else wrote.
The thing is, Mal, you'd be charmingly naive if you knew you were naive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I would vote for an atheist conservative over a christian liberal and when you vote for an agnostic moderate...you don't know what you're going to get. You'll only get what they think is best for them.
Are you inventing alignments for a new political RPG?
RPG?
I prefer to know who I am voting for. The majority of politicians do not stand for anything besides what their political advisors recommend. I prefer clumsy, honest words over a carefully crafted political speech. I trust a woman who can give a speech based on a word written on her hand more than a man who recites a teleprompter speech that someone else wrote.
Do you think Hollywood makes the best movies in the world due to their plot lines?
First off, Hollywood makes the worst movies in the world. Trust me that is an argument you cannot win with me. Secondly there is no such thing as an atheist conservative. That's pretty much an oxymoron.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Alternatively, Chinese hardline communists
They all still make sacrifices in the little temples and stuff, though, right? I thought beliefs in spirits, dragons, etc. was pretty much endemic.
Note that I am not condescending when I say that. I keep an open mind. I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic, but I am open to the possibility of soul-ness, just not omniscient God-ness.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that among a certain type of pre-Ralph-Reed conservative, atheism was practically de rigeur. It's only in the last 20 years that the Republicans been focused on drumming the godless out of their party.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The quickest border crossing I've ever had.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
