Country Boy
There is more to democracy than the vote- remember Saddam - well he got 100 % Spade just nailed you to a cross.
Bye Bye Iggy Bye Bye -
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Country Boy
There is more to democracy than the vote- remember Saddam - well he got 100 % Spade just nailed you to a cross.
Hi Cousin...sorry for the delay - had to out for most of the day.
To answer your question, yes, please keep going...it's good! Still have to perform some chores here but will get back on it ASAP. But yes, I like the list a lot! Thanks for doing it (sincerely!)...and do feel free to add more. Catch ya' shortly...
List continued.
* Civilian oversight of the police
* Military direction by parliament
* Equal access to education based on academic merit
* No inherited positions of privilege (no monarchy)
* Stewardship rather than rapid exploitation of resources
* Environmental protection
Whoops, got to go! Computer being updated Later!
Cousin Spade
We need Iggy, if he goes we might have to deal with Bob the Rea. Oh sorry forgot, we need Rea then all the Ontario votes will go Conservative.
Hi Spade...Sorry about the delay...weather-related delays out here!
OK, I appreciate all you've said about democracy and I can't say I disagree. I'm just havin' a bit of trouble connecting all dots together. Your list of points on what a democracy entails is something that I can't argue with, and I can't see much in there that says we don't have such a democracy like that in Canada. There are a few points in there that could be "weak", from a Canada standpoint, and I marked them with a little circle:
üMinority rights
üEquality before the law
üPresumption of innocence
üRight to privacy
üEquality of opportunity
üFreedom of expression
üFreedom of assembly
üFreedom of and from religion
üFreedom from fear
mFreedom from want
üRepresentation by population
üWhistleblower protection
üFreedom of the press
mFreedom from government propaganda (There seems to be some of that, always)
üRight to access of information
üCivilian oversight of the police
üMilitary direction by parliament
mEqual access to education based on academic merit (We pay, don't we..but we do have student loans available)
ümNo inherited positions of privilege (no monarchy) - (I guess the Queen is still the official head of government here)
mStewardship rather than rapid exploitation of resources (Uh, well...yes and no)
mEnvironmental protection (Yes and no - The DFO would have a problem with me dumping oil in the nice lake out in front of my place)
But what exactly are we debating here? Harper won the election with 35% of the popular vote? Given our current system, I think he won it fair, square, and legitimately, didn't he? üEquality before the law
üPresumption of innocence
üRight to privacy
üEquality of opportunity
üFreedom of expression
üFreedom of assembly
üFreedom of and from religion
üFreedom from fear
mFreedom from want
üRepresentation by population
üWhistleblower protection
üFreedom of the press
mFreedom from government propaganda (There seems to be some of that, always)
üRight to access of information
üCivilian oversight of the police
üMilitary direction by parliament
mEqual access to education based on academic merit (We pay, don't we..but we do have student loans available)
ümNo inherited positions of privilege (no monarchy) - (I guess the Queen is still the official head of government here)
mStewardship rather than rapid exploitation of resources (Uh, well...yes and no)
mEnvironmental protection (Yes and no - The DFO would have a problem with me dumping oil in the nice lake out in front of my place)
You had said: "The vote is only one small aspect of "democracy." But isn't that the one aspect that determines who will lead the country? (Or least, which political party?)
I can appreciate that you might have a problem with Mr. Harper or his party...I can't think of one leader or party that hasn't bugged me over the years, but I'm still cloudy (could be old age) about how this would endanger our democracy. I still think we're scoring not too badly in that department.
Help me - what am I missing here?
PS - Thanks again for that thoughtful list you put together...really, I think it was a good reminder for me (and hopefully others) on what we're all about. As much as we'd like to change things for the better, having read (and thought about) your list, I am reminded why we live in the best country in the world! :canada:
Firstly, you must understand I am an idealist. As an idealist, I have criticized governments on the left and right. You said Canada isn't doing so badly! And, I agree. Like many other nations, it travels towards democracy. Democracy is a goal. Some nations are closer to that goal than we are; we are ahead of many.
You see, a little over 60 years ago, in Canada, there were entire classes of multi-generational Canadians who could not vote. For them, Canada was not a democracy. Less than 50 years ago, children were placed in former camps, behind the wire, to punish their parents. For them, Canada was not a democracy.
Today, is the Harper government committed to democratic ideals? And, saying he is no different from his predecessors is no answer! Sorry. I have no time right now, but will be pleased to answer specifics later!
Spade, we need more idealists around that can articulate what's on their minds, and you certainly do that well.
I don't think we're very far apart on anything here. I too have a "bitch" about Harper's government (and a bunch of them prior to it) and it is the fact that it lacks vision for the future. And the only way I know to come up with a vision is to have ideals. Can't have one before you have the other.
We could go on and on about this one, but I understand and agree with what you've said. Now how do we get the message to the politicians? Given how politics seems to "work", we're talking a challenge with a capital "C!"
"Bye Bye Iggy Bye Bye"
Who is this "Iggy" character?
lol I wonder where he is and what he's doing?
I don't see Lameton or Iggy as any sort of reasonable alternative to Harpy.
All I've seen in politics the past two or 3 decades is one party getting into government and undoing stuff the previous one did and then doing its own stupid things. Canada isn't living, it's existing. Considering the potential we have, Canada has not accomplished very much and its almost entirely due to politics.
Who is this "Iggy" character?
lol I wonder where he is and what he's doing?
I don't see Lameton or Iggy as any sort of reasonable alternative to Harpy.
All I've seen in politics the past two or 3 decades is one party getting into government and undoing stuff the previous one did and then doing its own stupid things. Canada isn't living, it's existing. Considering the potential we have, Canada has not accomplished very much and its almost entirely due to politics.
NDP hasn't been in office once at the federal level, so I don't see why you're throwing them into the fed mix.
In Ontario, the conservatives undid much of the work done by the NDP previously and didn't replace it with squat.
As for Iggy: who gives a **** about that pompous elitist. Good riddance.
:roll: They are a federal party. And because sometimes they do make decent points opposing the gov't.
So?
I'll ditto that.
LOL, the NDP screwed up what the conservatives did in Ontario. Since the NDP, both the conservatives and the fiberals have had to clean up their mess. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You mean Bob Rae's gov't?
- wiki
Scandals really do in a gov't. Ask us here in BC about Glen Clark's gov't and the fact that any time the NDP became gov't they doubled the provincial debt. Not good.
You said that you don't see Layton as an alternative right? So if you're referring to his party, then how could you know when there's nothing to base it on (i.e. previous experience)?
You said one undoes stuff the previous one does, so I'm saying that isn't the case; the NDP isn't known for taking social programs apart or for abandoning the private sector to fend for itself, along with the rest of the population. Doesn't really go with the whole "big government" thing.
If by "screwed up" you mean managing to reverse the downward trend caused by previous governmental mismanagement of that province's economy, then yes, the NDP screwed things up but good--amazing the kind of devastation a bit of responsible government can cause.
The Conservatives and Liberals have done a wonderful job of cleaning up the NDP "mess"...to the point that Ontario is now back in a hole again. (Although to be fair, it's the Harris Conservatives that have done most of the heavy-duty cleaning; the McGuinty Liberals are more of the person that comes in to dust and keep things tidy.)
You talk as though the NDP were somehow unique in its screw-ups. Check the competition's record (for more than just dept accumulation), then we'll talk.
Clue: it's not exactly governmental responsibility on the part of the competition that gets the NDP elected.
My guess would be the Dipper platforms.
Les didn't say that, Risus did. I agree with you to a point; it's the Hypogrits, particularly Martin, that like to take social programs and pitch them in the dustbin (as long as it wasn't going to offend his rich pals).
The Dippers like big gov't, I agree. The problem with that is that the bigger it is the less efficient it gets. A picture needs hanging in parliament: the Cons send a minimum wage kid to pound a used and straightened nail into the wall to hang the pic after borrowing $8900 to buy the hammer with, the Gliberals cut social programs and spend $4000 on a hammer (from the store of a rich pal) and $82 million (over the table and $962 million under the table) on a contract for one of their rich pals to pound the $396 nail in (also bought from a rich pal), and the Dippers hire 400 people (union, of course) to study the situation), 672 union carpenters to lay out the plan, 2369 people to perform the nail driving, and borrow $9,583,628,472 for the nail and the hammer.
Oh, I know about the Socred screwups, the Gliberal screwups here. Those are relatively easily repaired, doubling the provincial debt isn't easily fixed.
Nope. Why the Dippers get elected here is because the others piss off the voters enough to sway the few undecideds over to the dipper side and the rest get fed up and don't vote.
And if we're really lucky, the rest of Canada won't get that po'd and vote them in federally. So far, so good.
See that's difference between me and a lot of people around here: I base my opinions on the background, not the rhetoric.
Stickler for details I see. I used 'quick reply' instead of 'quote this.' My bad. ;-)
You're thinking of the whole "balanced budget" debacle. Of course: actually generating the funds from prudent restructuring would've taken imagination. Once the budget buzz passed, people were left with the aftermath. That and a couple scandals thrown into the mix are the main reasons the Conservatives are in now.
Otherwise, actual Liberal policies haven't really differed that much from Conservative policies, so there's no point in being focusing on one or the other. The difference is mostly image. (Note that doesn't mean there aren't differences among their constituents and members; it's the leaderships I'm referring to.)
That's a myth. Same thing with inefficiency from regulation. All that is neo-liberal or "neo-con" :roll: rhetoric. Any traditional conservative will tell you that.
Efficiency is a measure of a government's merit, not it's size (like so many other things in life).
Nice little analogy; it does reflect the stereotype of each and I'm sure a lot of people vote based on that viewpoint.
A better analogy would be this:
"Conservatives" buy a hammer and nail at top dollar from their rich American friend, borrowing money to do so and creating a dept. The picture never gets put up. People get angry at the expense and vote Liberal. The Liberals criticize the Conservatives for mismanagement of funds, while borrowing money for used hammers and nails, yet the picture remains on the floor. Now deeply in dept, people vote NDP as a last resort. The New Democrats, are now stuck with a bunch of hammers and nails, when they realize that the picture never had a string to hold it up in the first place. They buy the stupid string and are in the process of putting the picture up when the Liberals and Conservatives launch a massive campaign to show how the NDP put us into impossible dept by over-spending on string and that they don't have the experience to put pictures up. People vote out the NDP before the picture can be put up. The new Liberal/Conservative government finishes putting the picture up (crooked, naturally) and continues criticizing the NDP of putting us into dept by wasting funds on loads of over-priced hammers and nails as well as string...and of course, not putting the picture up.
Getting the picture now? (No pun intended.)
Well it was Liberal screw-ups that caused the debt the NDP inherited in Ontario. The NDP got in as the recession hit. They tried to build up the social infrastructure in the midst of it; additional dept is bound to accumulate in a situation like that. I don't see how any government could have avoided that without a causing a humanitarian disaster. I'm no fan of Rae but the Harris government that came after him was an embarrassment to conservatism and responsible government. (Also says a lot about Ontarians that he got re-elected.)
Putting the blame on the NDP for Ontario's debt is like blaming someone for not picking up someone else's garbage.
The cause was recession and previous government mismanagement, just like in Ontario. Only in BC they really messed up on the PR front.
Oh yeah we've really been winning the lottery federally thus far haven't we...where do people get his stuff?
Yeah, I am sure everyone claims to do that.
No worries. I am sure we all do that.
Yes.
yes.
Sorry, it isn't a myth. The same thing happens in huge companies. The larger they are, the less efficient they are, but not so much as in gov'ts. BC's Dipper gov't was trimmed by a sizeable chunk after we booted them out and it still manages to do a half decent job. There are bones to pick with the latest one, but the new one hasn't doubled the debt and kissed the butts of union execs.
Yes, inefficiency is a byproduct of large gov't though.
Thank you, I know. Stereotypes aren't always wrong, you know.
In your opinion...
I agree that there really isn't much of a difference between the Cons and Glibs. I haven't seen anything from Lameton that urges me to vote Dipper, regardless. I am usually likely to vote Indie because they either are idiots, or make a fair bit of sense. That's a result of not having to kiss a leader's butt and toe the party line. It's just logical to me that there is good and bad ideas in parties. I would much rather see someone pick out the good and chuck the idiocies than go full speed ahead on whatever idea regardless of it being a good one or bad one. IOW, IMO, parties suck. Big gov't is wasteful and inefficient. (I'm a minarchist/ classical liberal).
I see your position. That's fine but I disagree.
Why not intend the pun? I like a good pun.
I realize most of that. After Rae, I didn't pay much attention to ON's gov't. Too busy harassing our own here. lol
I didn't say anything about ON's debt. But I did hear it whining about being a have-not province the past couple years or so.
Yeah, it was bad PR to allow the news of Bingogate and others out to the public. It was bad PR to allow people to figure out BC's debtload. It was bad PR to get caught in conflict of interest messes (especially right after Vanderscam's conflict of interest thing). I could go on.
It might possibly be that people have seen socialism at work in other areas of the world.
It is good to see the Liberals stand up against terror -
It is frightening what some Liberals define as terror-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-a-pie-in-the-face-a-terrorist-act/article1444392/
A Liberal MP says the federal government should investigate whether the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by a woman opposed to the seal hunt constitutes an act of terrorism.
Gerry Byrne says he thinks what happened should be reviewed under the legal definition of terrorism.
"When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization," the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP said in an interview from Ottawa with radio station VOCM in St. John's.
It is frightening what some Liberals define as terror-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-a-pie-in-the-face-a-terrorist-act/article1444392/
A Liberal MP says the federal government should investigate whether the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea by a woman opposed to the seal hunt constitutes an act of terrorism.
Gerry Byrne says he thinks what happened should be reviewed under the legal definition of terrorism.
"When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization," the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP said in an interview from Ottawa with radio station VOCM in St. John's.