Michael Hardner

But that value is only really invoked if the paper value isn't there. You would reduce the amount of money in circulation.

bump

Bump. And the stinking PR corpse is revived to roam the MLW again.

Two options ? And the current 4-party system is not an option because ? Other countries do lots of things that we don't do - such as private healthcare. But if we're going to revive the stinking PR corpse let's do it in another thread.

Again - explain why we need to change a system that is mature and works well for our country. Saying "Because Israel has it" isn't giving a good reason.

There were parties from the start. Banning parties makes the system altogether different than what we have - and you haven't explained why that's necessary given the success that I have pointed out. "Our parliamentary system would function just fine..." says... you. Like people who promote PR, you understate the implications of major changes. More free votes would be a minor change that could improve things, banning parties would be an overhaul - though I'm not certain that is what you want.

That ISN'T the same system. As I pointed out, why would we wreck the system that got us this far ? Parties allow for centralized control and organization so that like-minded groups can forge a general direction. Well, it's similar to the American system in design but yet it's much different in execution. I credit the powers that be for that.

While I do agree that the left/right axis is becoming restrictive I don't have a solution there. Maybe 4 parties: a social left, social right, fiscal left and fiscal right. But I don't want to engage in democratic deform. Canada, it should be noted, produced a successful if not the most successful country in the world with its system. Anything we do should tweak our current system and not explode it as PR would. I propose that we continue to encourage smart dialogue, and discourage dumb dialogues (and monologues) by reducing campaign funding (thereby reducing the number of television ads - the dumbest) and creating ways for the parties to publish their policies online and in print - requiring lots of reading (the smartest). None of this changes the mechanism of our democracy, but simply beefs up the system that already exists. The system seems to actually be getting better, and we actually have our political parties to thank for that.

PR is just a dumb idea, IMO, but we have discussed here already extensively in threads devoted to that.

PR would only achieve what the proposed coalition would achieve anyway, wouldn't it ?

Why not ? If the bank lends out money, it's all numbers on a computer. What does it matter if paper or coins are used ? Then why aren't you focusing on that - and instead are focusing on the physical material used to represent cash money ?

Right. So, once again: the people DIDN'T vote for expansion of government. They voted AGAINST it. Therefore government doesn't unilaterally expand. Thank you. We had no government at all for hundreds of thousands of years. And arguably, government (well, central control by a cabal of priests and wise men) enabled the creation of cities. Ok. I'm giving up. I gave you a solid example of people pushing back against government growth and voting against tax hikes. It isn't proof that government *shrinks* but that's not what I tried to show. I don't think you have proof that we're doomed to arrive at the socialist state. The Trudeau mindset is dead and gone and we're all moving on. I have to conclude that you have blinders on with regards to your theory, and you're not looking at reality. Yes and it's LESS than we had in the past but anyway. There isn't any Ministry of Trust that I know of. So, I'm not sure what you refer to here. Yes, yes and the Soviet Union and etc. etc. etc. For every extreme example of the failures of socialism, we can also produce an example of the failure of a laissez-faire system. I think we're covered off the basics of this discussion, that some government is necessary (and we disagree on how much) but that it should be watched. It feels like we're circling back now.

Ok, I haven't heard that one.

On its own, that would do nothing from what I can see. The government would have to spend a lot more money to create physical money but unless you changed the banking laws, then you're just changing paper for coin. If the dollar collapses, your coins are valued at the price of the metal but that price also fluctuates.

It is still called 'outsourcing'. Sending to other countries is called 'offshoring' even if that shore is Lake Erie or the Bay of Fundy.

Agreed. Just wait for the poster in question to become feverishly excited by his own doctrine. He inevitably breaks forum rules, at which point you can report him and hopefully the moderator will send him off.

Did you just say that all voters are aligned with some special interest ? And you have blinders on with respect to my Mike Harris example. Again you're giving a case where voters (and you said 'all who do vote') generally want creation of bureaucracy. Depending on your definition of 'generally', it isn't so. People also vote for tax cuts and that is proven. You appear to be doing a comparison between today and 1910 ? Did government expand in that time period ? Yes, also universal suffrage arrived, we fought two world wars and a cold war, invented everything... anyway you get the point. MP expenses are a drop in the bucket. It's stupid to nit-pick over such things. Why don't you focus on the real perks these people get - their ridiculous pensions ? Yes, there is waste and excess. But we're discussing whether democracy is doomed to voting in expanding government forever. If you look at cutbacks that have happened, it's clear that government doesn't unilaterally grow and expand programs. I can envision it. I just have to go back to 1910 in my mind. Except that today we have giant corporations using public resources for the enrichment (mostly) of a few, though it does enrich us all to a degree. I do agree that private services work in a lot of example, so let's talk about that instead of arguing this overarching nonsense that government is a borg that will kill us all or whatever...

Belleville is called "The Friendly City", which as near as I can figure was named such to dissuade the large number of random assaults that occur there. I grew up in Belleville.

Another objective poster gives thumbs-down to both KO and GB. Will Shady follow suit ?

Yes, and as I recall when he left there were a bunch of dead-end threads and links that he didn't provide. The board was a lot better while he was gone, but I'm not sure if that's correlation or causation.

Here's another list that came out: 1. Kelowna BC 2. Gander NFLD 3. Belleville ON 4. Istanbul Turkey 5. Gerlach Nevada This is a list of places I thought of.

Yes, he's outrageous and he says stupid things that I give a thumbs-down. If somebody starts a post on him, or posts something we can comment on it. I'm not equally outraged. I have seen one clip where he said something stupid. When I turn on the Beck show, it's always stupid. Also, and this is important, Beck is several times more influential than KO. If my actions are hypocritical, let the record show that I condemned a liberal. Are you going to condemn Beck for his stupidity and outrageous claims ? Let's see.

I don't think Western Mosques do either.

I did mean her, in fact. The guillotine is always there... if only in the nightmares of the King Louis of the world.

Depending on how loud we ask for it, they tend to listen. Even monarachy did that... especially after Mme. Lefarge...