Ad hoc come backs.....love it. I get elitist from one and douche from another yet not a single tenable retort......you've made my point for me.
What did we do? Harper Majority!!
- Thread starter YaYiP
- Start date
To you maybe, but I have no party affiliations. I was only interested in trying to prevent a Harper Majority. From his "Harper Government" instead of Canadian Government stationery to shutting out the media to his contempt of parliament, I fail to see how this egomaniac will be beneficial to Canada.
Is it not wilful.....it's more PC than to say innate. At least there's hope for wilful ignorance in that the ignorant could learn something for a change."Willful voter ignorance?" It is really moving to see the faith you put in your fellow Canadians.
Your point being that you're a judgmental turd who presumes to know what's best for the country and assumes everyone else is a moron?
Yup, you're brilliant. Perhaps Ignatieff will take you on as his squire, you seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Your type have come on here trying to explain in the past why people they deem beneath them should be denied government representation. It's not a new argument, it's been had. There's nothing you can say that would convince me that you or anyone else should be able to arbitrarily remove the right to vote from any citizen who has to live under our government. Why waste my time? It's elitist and ridiculous.
I agree with that about 75% but once in a blue moon you have to have a majority to do a proper "spring cleaning" & if they f*** that up they won't even see a minority next election.
I think I'm pretty much the only one who makes the argument on here, so you need only worry about me. Again, no one challenges me with an argument, rather slanders me to make their point. This is not by the way an issue of being an elitist, rather an acknowledgment that the issues our politicians fight over are issues our public are not educated on. If you are not educated on the matter, then why should you have a say. You are making the case that even if everyone in the country knows nothing, they should still have a say on matters for which they know little. If that is what you think, then why don't we allow children to vote? I assume you make the assumption, and a presumptuous one at that, that just because someone is old enough, they therefore know enough? Can you back this up? I can think of a myriad of issues where there is a general "truth", yet a good portion of the population thinks otherwise and are allowed to vote with this misapprehension in mind. Is this what you support? If so, why?
By the way, I assume you voted....did you not?? Would that not imply that you also think you know what's best for the country? Don't act as though you don't either cuz almost everyone thinks they know what is best. Unfortunately, some are better at arriving at the truth than others.
Difference is I'm not going hopping up on a soapbox and basically telling people they're too stupid too vote.
You clearly have an issue with Democracy. The right to vote, free press, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of religion and on and on.
What else would you put qualifiers on - You seem to want that for people to Vote - Some sort of qualification before a person is eligible to vote, pray tell what would those qualifications be and who makes up the test??????
Perhaps something along the line of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" Just throwing out some ideas. Start up a thread on what rights a person should have, what ones they should earn, what the qualifications should be, and of course for those that do not fit in, the Penalty Clause. Gotta have that Penalty Clause ya know. Ain't worth shxt without a Penalty Clause.
We are treading a fine line here, personally I believe everyone should have the right to vote or not. I personally feel that voters who don't understand or don't care about the issues and still vote only complicate things, BUT by the same token I don't think it's up to the rest of us to decide who is cognizant and who isn't. I am however dead against compulsory voting (like in Australia) as that just limits basic freedoms.
That's just sour grapes. I didn't vote for Team Harper either, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my circumstances fit the entire nation...tax splitting, lower taxes, stronger military, these are all things I approve of, though I would quibble about specifics. I would vote for Harper if he wasn't also interested in addressing crime after the fact (mandatory minimums, more prisons, etc), if he were less controlling of government scientists, if he actually had plans on improving Canadian productivity (reliance on resource based economy will not improve productivity). For instance.
But for many people, Harper's platform is what they are looking for.
Is it willful, or innate ignorance on your part that you fail to see that we're not all cut from the same cloth?
Is it any wonder our politicians can be so nasty when we as citizens are no better? Or rather some of us...
You need to open your eyes, and begin to empathize with other Canadians before you start calling them ignoramuses.
/rant
If you pay taxes, and are bound by the laws enacted by a government, I believe you should be allowed to vote. And I do not believe for one second that there is any practical, cost effective way, to test the knowledge of each voter on the issues affecting each election. And regardless of any indepth knowledge, voters are electing an official in their area who they trust to have the knowledge for them and represent their interests.
You're hopping up on a soapbox telling me to keep quiet without addressing the content of my argument. I'll address any retorts to my position, but simply telling me to shut up or calling me a douche proves more my point than yours.
Your argument being that voters don't know the truth and until they do we need more stringent voting requirements put in place?
How would we do that, pop quiz, eugenics, income?
Also, it's very rare for any party to campaign on truths, they tell you what you want to hear.
1. Please provide some statistics, and a definition, to back up your assertion that 'voter ignorance' is high.
2. Please provide some evidence that 'the right mix is a mix grounded on truth'
3. please provide some evidence that voters 'don't know what that is' (not sure if 'that' refers to 'truth' or 'the right mix')
Until there is a more stringent presentation of ideas, your paper will not receive a passing mark.
This thread is funny...
Stop littering.
No, the Conservatives won. You and your family were relegated to 'also rans'.
So you sold out for a quick buck. I got ya.
What I gave you?
Sounds like a culot.
Ya, I think I already mentioned, my family is more important than your ideology.
I agree, which is why I won't sell out like you.
Because that's all your sulking rant deserves.
I think there are a number of commonly held beliefs that do not hold water for which there is a clear consensus amongst experts.
Anthropogenic global warming - (the Conservatives denied it initially, not just rather do nothing about it.) If by the way you are in disagreement about global warming.
VAT/HST - No one knows why it is suppose to be a good thing yet everyone wants it scrapped. Seems to me you should know why 29 or 30 OECD countries have it before you want it scrapped. (for that matter, you should know what the OECD is)
You should know why putting a cap on interest rates is a bad idea.
You should know a little about fiscal and monetary policy so you have some idea why rates go up and down.
You should know a bit about science ((enough to know why vaccines are good, global warming is real and that the earth revolves around the sun (many people still don't know this))
I know you are going to say that the answers to these and many other problems are only a matter of opinion, but that is not true. Sadly most people know nothing about how the world works and fill their head with conspiracy theories in replace of actual answers.
Make fun of my rant, but you can't argue with it. If you could mount a legitimate attack of it, you would. I am not saying my argument is infallible, rather you lack to the tools to expose any error.....or so it would seem.
I suggest that you still have a lot to learn about life and until you do you will come across to many people as unsympathetic and arrogant. :smile:
I bet a lot more was accomplished right/wrong with a majority government (winner of popular vote). Sometimes the simplistic way is better than something complicated that many do not understand. Yes, you can have a majority with 4 parties or more, but that is usually where those parties have to do tradeoffs to get anything accomplished and not necessarily what the people want.