เล่นบาคาร่า เว็บไหนดี pantip_เว็บไซต์เกมประเทศไทย_เกมยิงปลาฟรีดาวน์โหลด

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
เกมส์ยิงปลาW88
Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by brookmere:
[b]
Do you have any empirical evidence that there is any correlation between low voter turnout and electoral success for the Liberals and Conservatives versus the NDP or PQ/BQ, either at the federal or provincial level?[/b]

I was talking about increasingly low voter turnouts coinciding with paternalistic governments in Ottawa and Toronto. The NDP just wants one person to equal one vote and be counted is all. Nothing more than that. And I'm sure that if I peruse Liberal and Tory party web sites, I'll find reams and reams of information on the pluses for advanced proportional democracy invented some time after electricity.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Hardly, since it is impossible to make it compulsory without a proposed manner of enforcement.[/b]

My own proposition is making voting compulsory with only a quite large tax credit so much so that the punishment of non-voters would simply be a relative impoverishment.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Everyone is all excited by the idea of voter supression, so now they think if everyone would vote they would vote NDP.[/b]

I think Jean Chretien promised a crowd of Winnipegers that he'd look into it. I'm not sure if it was before or after he put the Shawinigan handshake on a Canadian citizen protesting poverty and unemployment in the roaring 90's. "Pepper? I put it on my plate" Ya we remember that one, too, oh formerly fearful Liberal leader of ours.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

My own proposition is making voting compulsory with only a quite large tax credit so much so that the punishment of non-voters would simply be a relative impoverishment.[/b]


That is not compulsory.

It is still very bad, since it skews the system to the advantage of the economic elite who use tax credits.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

That is not compulsory.

It is still very bad, since it skews the system to the advantage of the economic elite who use tax credits.[/b]


It would be a refundable tax credit.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oh you mean pay people to vote? How silly is that since you tax them anyway. Basically you are just fining people for not voting.

Now, if I were to refuse to pay the portion of my tax that went to your tax credit, on principle, I would be looking at tax fraud.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

It would be a refundable tax credit.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]


I think it was Zbignew Brzezinski who said there's nothing more gratifying than a bunch of stirred up voters with fortified support for overthrowing imperialism, or something like that.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Oh you mean pay people to vote? How silly is that since you tax them anyway. Basically you are just fining people for not voting.

Now, if I were to refuse to pay the portion of my tax that went to your tax credit, on principle, I would be looking at tax fraud.[/b]


Yes. After maintaining an army, taxing and minting money are other prerogatives of the state.

Cueball Cueball's picture

So is shooting people for not being at a certain place, at a certain time in order to mark up a piece of paper. Anything is the perogative of the state. Theoretically at least human rights are meant to protect people from the excesses of the state, when in the hands of the insane.

The state, as you envision it is the absolute fascist state, of the kind proposed by Benito Mussolini, qouted variously above. And here:

quote:

[b]The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. [/b]

Benito Mussolini


[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Yes. After maintaining an army, taxing and minting money are other prerogatives of the state.[/b]


I believe financing for Hitler project was arranged by several western financiers and one governor of the Bank of England at the time. Later, the Nazis relied on marauding into and looting gold and bank deposits of other nations with the help of Banksters for International Settlements, which started out as a shadowy outfit holed up on the second floor over some bakery in Basel Switzerland. And Keynesian-militarism was born. We've since privatized money creation in 1991, and so debt-driven money creation has everyone reliant on a private banking cabal for economic fuel.

quote:

[b]The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. -- Benito Mussolini[/b]

And so since those extreme violations of sovereign borders that was WW II, we have the UN to come to the aid of bullied nations. We have WTO and IMF to project fascist power across international borders and installing pre-selcted central bankers in countries where they were never citizens of before, or who were simply educated in ways of dominant revenuers.

And if that doesn't work, the fascists and gangsters operate in a not-so subtle way - by pre-emptive air strikes and false pretexts paving the way for marauding into sovereign countries militarily, approximately 25 times since Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

brookmere

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
I was talking about increasingly low voter turnouts coinciding with paternalistic governments in Ottawa and Toronto.[/b]

Isn't a minority government less paternalistic than a majority pretty much by definition? Or are you just going by your personal opinion of the government of the day?

By what criteria is the current government in Ontario more "paternalistic" than that of Bill Davis, John Robarts, or Grew Drew for that matter?

I might add that a lot of people regarded the Rae government as rather paternalistic too.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by brookmere:
[b]
Isn't a minority government less paternalistic than a majority pretty much by definition? Or are you just going by your personal opinion of the government of the day?[/b]

Not when we have two old line parties with somewhere less than 43 percent of registered voter support between them propping up each other's big business and bankster agendas, no. Even that might be considered a phony majority coalition now that full-fledged phony majorities are hard to come by for either of the two high powered big money parties. And I don't wonder why our obsolete electoral system has caused this overall democracy gap and lack of voter enthusiasm.

[quote[b]I might add that a lot of people regarded the Rae government as rather paternalistic too.[/b][/QUOTE]

The NDP was elected by accident in 1990 after the Petersen Liberals got cockey and called an election. Liberal and Tory voters can be orphaned voters, too, but I doubt too many of them are made aware of it by party appratchiks.

เกมส์ยิงปลาW88
Maysie Maysie's picture

Good morning. Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked