no yu begin wher i end

Someone was wearing their beer goggles.

In Spain, are you allowed to spoil your ballot?

Man, that was a great interview. "So, where are you on here?" "Behind the 30% off sticker."

I'm totally making a shirt like that and going on an international flight. Then if I'm turned away, I'll go on Fox News and tell Bill O'Reilly that Australians hate freedom.

Most likely to not nominate himself for anything: Me. Dammit...

Register your disgust with the candidates, make it official.

Has excellent taste in music.

One way or the other, he was a douche.

I think it was called "Everybody Wants," and I quite enjoyed that song. Their album has quite a few high points on it.

I did vote in the last election. How many people don't vote because they "already know who's going to win"? Ever wonder if the outcome would be different if those people actually voted? Or on the flip side, wouldn't you feel a bit stupid if your man lost because you assumed he would get in? Personally, I think that if this is a given excuse, then it just means "I'm too lazy to get off my ass once every few years for a few minutes." I don't mean to come off as a dick, but in my opinion, no one has a good excuse for not picking up a newspaper during an election campaign, heaven forbid learning a thing or two, and voting (or spoiling/casting a blank ballot). Besides, don't federal candidates and parties receive funding for the next election that's partially based on the amount of votes they received in the previous election? Also, in the event that the election is close, your vote can either a) help strengthen the credibility of the winner, or b) send a message to the winner that they'll have to take more into account when making decisions than just their own point of view. There's upsets in every election. And there's no bias in the news? If you're ever in Winnipeg, pick up a copy of the Sun and tell me if you think they're very nice to the political left, for example. People who watch CBC tend to vote Liberal, I've found, over other parties. I think CTV is the opposite (leans right). There's always going to be bias to some degree, and it's not too hard to find out where it is. Again, how is the problem of people not knowing the issues and voting anyway going to be any different than it already is? The current system right now leaves it vulnerable to the exact same thing, with callous mudslinging designed to distract from the issues; the irrational, zealous voters flock to the polls. As an example, the 2004 presidential election was won by the GOP thanks in large part to a question on gay marriage on the ballots, a measure largely designed to ensure a large turnout from evangelicals, and it worked, as we all know. I know this is more symptom than disease, but again I ask, are there any other viable ways to increase voter turnout?

Spoil your ballot.

1. Is there a consequence to not voting in those two countries? I think it's a small fine, maybe about $50 Canadian.

Actually politics has always been related to religion with very few exceptions. politics is just what people use to make decisions, so if the majority of a group of people believe in the omniscience and wisdom of bigfoot- the destination of their eternal soul depends upon them doing exactly what bigfoot says - then that's obviously going to be reflected in government by representatives and their dumbass policies. There're always going to be nutjob terrorists and automatons. The majority of reasonable people are not going to go around blowing up SUVs unless they're indocrinated by an idiot, which is what im fundamentally against. Communism/fascism aren't good examples because they're basically religion in the form of political governance. Instead of submitting to jesus you submit to your fellow man or some other asshole. Perhaps then it would be more concise to disown (for lack of a better word) all forms of extremism, and not limit yourself solely to religion? Just because other forms of extremism share attributes of religion doesn't make them religion with another name (although I'll agree with communism, specifically Stalinism).

This. Is. Awesome.

Best band: Panic Button. *snicker

They have mandatory voting in Australia and Belgium, and I'm pretty sure neither of those countries are tyrannical. Maybe it is too much to ask of some people to pick up a newspaper once in a while and get off their ass. At the very least, the people who don't vote shouldn't be allowed to get pissed off when the government does something they don't like. Cast a blank or spoiled ballot, get some exercise. In other countries, voting isn't something that's taken for granted. I hate people, sometimes. Here's a change of topic: how could voter turnouts be increased, if incentives such as tax breaks weren't allowed? Perhaps more political education at the high school level? Offer classes in politics, instead of just a unit in grade 9 social studies on Canadian government. That way people will have a better understanding of politics and the parties once they become old enough to vote.

'Life in a Glass House' was playing in the background when Clive Owen was visiting Michael Caine in the beginning. I thought it was cool.

The best part was Clive Owen smoking Sid in the face with the cinder block. Great movie. PS: Plus, Radiohead in the background.

You're exactly right. It's not the only form of violent extremism but it lends credence to all other forms of extremistm which makes it specifically important. All of the things you mentioned are related to religion.These other forms of violence are all supported and affected by religion. Catholics become nationalists. Christians hate fags. Muslims force a separation in class. etc But is it not possible for an atheist to be any of those things as well? Politics, for example, isn't necessarily related to religion. There have always been communists willing to kill and die for their cause. Those people who firebomb SUVs make their decisions because they're scared by the science which shows SUVs contribute to global warming and massive depletion of fossil fuels. Not that I'm using this example to equate science and religion, but I don't think religion is as pervasive as you're making it out to be. I know the role of religion in some conflicts, but I'm pretty sure that if you were an atheist Palestinian in 1948, you'd be pretty pissed off.

Oh right, those.

I don't think that's much different from how it is now, unfortunately.

Didn't he auction off two pieces and give the money to a charity a while back?

Personally, I'm in the middle, leaning slightly towards yes. With voter turnout declining, I think it may be a good thing to bring about greater democratic representation. Or, if not made mandatory and punishable by fines, then perhaps a tax credit for going out and voting? Opinions?

Everyone is a dangerous idiot. To me, there's far too much contradiction in religious texts for any one group to follow them to the word, thus there's no such thing as a "true" Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. Just as an interesting side note, there's an argument that the original version of the bible in Greek or whatever doesn't mention homosexuality once, that true meanings got lost in translation. It was interesting, and I'll dig it up later (it's bookmarked on another computer). My main beef with the argument of this thread is that it appears to assume that religion is the only form of violent extremism, and thus violent extremism can be eliminated by eliminating religion. What about racism? Politics? Nationalism? Environmentalism? Class struggle? People will always find reasons to kill other people. The one we hear about the most right now is religion, I think in part because to some it is trendy to bash religion. I used to think that way. I have friends who've thought that way. Then we stopped listening to shitty punk and metal. Like it or not, religion is a freedom granted in this country, and many others around the world. Once that freedom is taken away, how many others would be taken away in the name of combating violent extremism? Is it really religious moderate tolerance that's breeding religious extremism? I don't consider Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and the rest to be bastions of religious tolerance. Canada and the US, because of their moderate positions, are far less conducive to breeding violent religious extremism. I don't think there's many people who would call the people you describe "religious moderates."

Yes!! This record turns me on (in a hetero kind of way).