I noticed but I doubt anyone who isn't as equally politically nerdy as I am has. But, even being the political nerd I am, I find it hard to care about Canadian elections. They are simply unlikely to affect my life in any major way- Canada has always had a fairly tame foreign policy and the few trade disputes we have had aren't that big of a deal. Canada is taking over solely because the US is so fucked up. The sad part is, that Canada might find itself becoming the main power in the Western Hemisphere if we don't get our act together.

Oh well, if the shit hits the fan, I can pass for Canadian, and I can think of worse places to live than BC.  

I have always felt we in Australia more akin to Canada than the US.

Our dollar is currently very close to the Canadian dollar, our population is much closer in size, and we are not much hung up about religion, we have a public health system, etc.

We also really seem to have avoided most of the effects of the GFC.

We do have some fanatic anti-Muslims.

Gingrich is even nuttier than I had already thought.

Oh! I was not expecting a shirtless Vlad Putin to be the thumbnail. That just goes to show that we do not have a lock on insanty.

That's it. I leaving the solar system. Extra seats on the next ship out available. Get 'em while they're still in  pre-order.

I am just waiting for the rationalresponders website to say this at top:

Home....Forums....My Account.....Videos......Would you like to know more about Allah?......link to us!

Canada has one of the most legendary politicians, that is arguably without parallel.

The mayor of Mississauga. The 6th largest city in Canada.

During the runnings of the Presidential candidates for the current Presidency, a number of threads in political forums in America were nominating 'Hurricane Hazel', for 'Prez'.

Meet 'Hurricane Hazel'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY79KbCptTo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion

ok Jon Stewart.

I have seen a few atheists that have claimed that other atheists defend muslims (christina rad and pat condell as popular examples) I think when they make this claim they are not taking into consideration that the same people will defend the christians right to believe in whatever hocus pocus they want as well. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right here but I am as or perhaps even more anti-islam as anyone could be. Christianity takes more hits because it is here and dominant.

I know right, I was trying to word it better but his way was the best,   bbbbusted!!!

all probably qualify as islamophobes by the muslim definition - that being anyone who criticises the faith. I think I'm worse. I'd go so far as deny immigrant status to any religious person who refused to agree right there that the nation took precedence over their dogma. This would exclude most fundy muslims and christians. Tho' your muslims are encourage to lie to the infidel so perhaps the test would have to involve denying Mo' three times before the cock crew...

Islam will win out in the end vs christianity. This entitlement problem that's going round coupled with potentially 72 virgins, wtf is peter going to give blows jobs at the pearly gates to compete?

yeah, but my whole point is that if islam overruns europe and/or america, they will no longer be in charge only of shitholes, and the history of islam has already shown us that, like every other expansionist religion, once it achieves its goals and becomes wealthy, it becomes as fat and complacent as any other religion with considerable wealth.  i mean, islam in the former yugoslavia, for example, isn't even in the government, but it is respected and it does benefit from the nation's wealth, and it doesn't proscribe alcohol even for its own adherents.

a new muslim empire on the scale of the ottomans at their peak would stamp out its own fanatics.  i wager suleiman the magnificent would track down and slaughter bin laden a lot more efficiently than the american military--but, again, in such a situation, bin laden wouldn't even exist...at least, not as a muslim.

btw, in the vast majority of situations, there was a choice in the islamic empires.  nonmuslims only had to pay a tax, which was not typically burdensome. but even still, guess what?  lots of people chose to convert then.  and history shows us that there was no lack of flowing alcohol in these empires.  just read about the travels of ibn batutta, a sort of muslim marco polo.  he traveled from his native morocco all the way to china.  he passed through several different islamic empires: mamluk egypt and central asia, seljuk turkey, safavid persia, moghul india.  he was a devout religious scholar, and thus a  prude and a bit of a twat, and he constantly expressed horror at how hedonistic his fellow muslims were throughout the world, not only drinking but sleeping around.  did he blow up buildings in righteous fury?  no, he wrote a few pissy paragraphs.  why blow up buildings when you and every muslim around you is rolling in wealth?

and i can just hear someone now going, "oh, so you'd gladly be a dhimmi" (people love throwing that word around since it became common coin in 2001).  my answer: i'm already somebody's dhimmi.  so are you.  we all are.  who gives a fuck who pulls the strings?  when the fat cats of the world get in power (i mean those who control true global wealth, not some pissant country), they're all basically the same.

so do i think enriching muslims would stop terrorism?  no.  i think it would virtually eliminate islamic terrorism, but as long as there's a third world in misery, there will be terrorists.  people don't become terrorists by reading the quran.  they finnd justification for it in the quran, and they'll find justification for it in the bible, the vedas, or wherever they care to look.

here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.  and if it would mean a tax break and a cushy do-nothing job, you damn right i'd kneel to mecca, and only those who believe in a specific fairy would have a problem with that.  i'd keep my flask of whiskey under my prayer rug and, in a rich islamic europe, i guarantee you i wouldn't lose my head or even my job over it, as long as i was discreet.

and please don't throw quran verses at me.  the worst thing you can do to inform yourself of the history of world islam is to use the quran as your primary source, just as the bible would be a terrible primary source to inform you of the history of christendom.

There is a fun trend with Islam, when they take over an entire area and there is no one left to fight they segregate themselves into different "types" of Islam and have a big hoe down with each other. It's history and it's now.

who's being bitter?  i'm just constantly trying to point out that islam is not a monolithic thing.  there are millions of muslims in the world who drink, dance, and whose women wear whatever they want, but that never makes it on the news so few people know about it.  even "sharia" is nor just sharia.  there are four major sunni legal schools of varying degrees of austerity recognized by different muslims in different parts of the earth

you also mention wahhabism.  you should know that's only been around since the 18th century and that pretty much only the saudis recognize it.  most of the muslim world condemns wahhabism as heresy and innovation.

totalitarianism by definition (see hannah arendt, the origins of totalitarianism) cannot flourish without isolation and insulation from the outside world.  the more a society expands a stable rule over the wider world, the more tolerant it becomes--intolerance is very bad for revenue.  choose any "worldwide" multicultural empire from history, not just the islamic ones, and you definitely won't find "totalitarianism" (never mind that it's only a 20th century phenomenon), and even tyranny usually only occurs as isolated local incidents.  religion is never emphasized except as a class element and thus it automatically becomes conservative.  under the umayyads and abassids, for example, it was actually very difficult for a non-arab to convert to islam, and usually outright impossible.  why?  because conversion meant admittance to a higher class.

of course, none of us can say exactly what would happen in a new islamic world empire, but i think i have the weight of historical evidence, and not only from an islamic perspective, on my side when i contend that you would not be forced to pray facing mecca...but you might find yourself wanting to, when you consider the perks.

by the way, i'd like to point out, as i have many times before, that the oppression of women happens in a minority of muslim societies, and is a cultural rather than a religious element.  female circumcision and burqas predated islam in their respective societies.  honestly, having studied both books, i'd say the quran is less disdainful of women than the bible.

i respect your pov.  the only thing i want to emphasize about my point before i leave it is that many of the things you fear already exist to some degree in much of the "democratic" world.  here in slovakia, for example, a portion of our taxes automatically go to each officially recognized religion based on the number of members they have.  it's not optional.