Dear Ada, To be interested in politics, well, that would be disturbing enough. But to be interested in Canadian politics? Yikes – that would be seriously outré.
John, Canadian politics kick ass! Where else do you have a party leader whose platform is based on splitting the country in two? And then there’s the RCMP investigation. And the wild insults. Fun stuff!
Dear Doug, I should have guessed. I mean, after all, the Savage Chickens certainly indicate that their creator possesses a, shall we say, idiosyncratic world view. But to answer your first question, “Where else do you have a party leader whose platform is based on splitting the country in two?”, well, Doug, that’s easy to answer: right here in your hegemonic neighbor to the south, the good, old US of A. However, I have to admit that “a boiled dog’s head smile” is an insult that reaches a height (depth?) of inventiveness that puts our banal politicos to shame.
While I agree that US politics do center around the splitting of the country, it is not an outright motivation, and is couched in terms of “unity” on either Democratic or Republican sides.
However, I think that the reason that our politicians don’t call each other names is that it is not allowed or actually felt to be a good US presidential strategy by the candidates. Personally I think more people would take up politics if that rule were baned, and the candidates could say any old thing on national debates…
Der Elwood, I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning, for it seems to me that if “US politics do center around the splitting of the country”, then how can it be “not an outright motivation?” Certainly the campaign rhetoric, from Nixon (and before) onward has always included a hypocritical call for “unity”, but if you examine deeds rather than words, it seems clear to me that BOTH parties have “traditional power bases” and that, in catering to these bases, division is inevitable. But this is becoming FAR too serious a discussion for the present context. Heck, they’re ALL rascals. Vote egg and the yolks on you. Vote chicken and you’ll elect someone fowl.
But isn’t “chicken” more hawkish? I’m voting “egg.”
oh, you’ve got it all wrong doninstatesville it’s definatly “chickens” year.
Wheres the chad?
Well, that ballot finally answers the age-old question: the chicken comes before the egg.
EGG! EGG! EGG! Oh, sorry, breakfast ended at 10:30???
Doug, you’re Canadian?
(or are you just interested in our politics?)
Dear Ada,
To be interested in politics, well, that would be disturbing enough. But to be interested in Canadian politics?
Yikes – that would be seriously outré.
Ada, yep I’m Canadian!
John, Canadian politics kick ass! Where else do you have a party leader whose platform is based on splitting the country in two? And then there’s the RCMP investigation. And the wild insults. Fun stuff!
Dear Doug,
I should have guessed. I mean, after all, the Savage Chickens certainly indicate that their creator possesses a, shall we say, idiosyncratic world view.
But to answer your first question, “Where else do you have a party leader whose platform is based on splitting the country in two?”, well, Doug, that’s easy to answer: right here in your hegemonic neighbor to the south, the good, old US of A. However, I have to admit that “a boiled dog’s head smile” is an insult that reaches a height (depth?) of inventiveness that puts our banal politicos to shame.
Dear John:
While I agree that US politics do center around the splitting of the country, it is not an outright motivation, and is couched in terms of “unity” on either Democratic or Republican sides.
However, I think that the reason that our politicians don’t call each other names is that it is not allowed or actually felt to be a good US presidential strategy by the candidates. Personally I think more people would take up politics if that rule were baned, and the candidates could say any old thing on national debates…
Der Elwood,
I’m afraid that I don’t follow your reasoning, for it seems to me that if
“US politics do center around the splitting of the country”, then how can it be “not an outright motivation?” Certainly the campaign rhetoric, from Nixon (and before) onward has always included a hypocritical call for “unity”, but if you examine deeds rather than words, it seems clear to me that BOTH parties have “traditional power bases” and that, in catering to these bases, division is inevitable.
But this is becoming FAR too serious
a discussion for the present context.
Heck, they’re ALL rascals. Vote egg and the yolks on you. Vote chicken and you’ll elect someone fowl.
Touche!
[…] Get out there and vote, Canadian readers, even if the choices aren’t all that interesting. […]
“Heck, they’re ALL rascals. Vote egg and the yolks on you. Vote chicken and you’ll elect someone fowl.”
Thats hilarious, and still applies.