Jump to content

KeyStone

Member
  • Posts

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KeyStone

  1. That's certainly one perspective, albeit an incorrect one. The biggest problem identified in Greece, is that many of those in the private industry aren't paying their taxes. There is a huge underground economy - and it isn't the 'evil government workers' cheating on their taxes. Apparently, doctors in Greece report an average income of $12,000. But for the knee-jerk rightwingers, it's much easier to blame the evil government workers, than to take a real look at what's going on. As for a great example of the private sector being given preference, just take a look at Guatemala. Incredibly low taxes, both personal and corporate. Very little interference by government. Go enjoy. A real paradise. Or perhaps you could look at Ireland's tax haven - that's certainly done wonders for them.
  2. What a selective memory you have. No mention of George Galloway who was denied by the GOVERNMENT. But the speakers who were shouted down by the people are etched in your memory.
  3. He wants to disband world governments because they don't take Israel's side often enough for his liking. He wants a world government that says, "Hey, go ahead kill as many Palestinian kids as you need to, we understand"
  4. Ahh, I see you're all free market on this. Surpise! There will be some that will get around this, but by making it illegal, it means that businesses won't be able to advertise it or put it on the menu, and they'll be a little nervous when people order it. This will limit demand. Ideally, this will spread to other municipalities, and eventually the province, for some real progress. The odds of it happening nationally are next to zero with our current government. While I agree with you that it is silly to make the fin illegal if the entire shark is used, I don't know if there are any solutions to allow for that, without having every shop keeper and restaurant owner claim that the fin came from a shark that was fully harvested. Until the ban is spread further, the fisherman that use the whole shark will have little trouble finding a market for the fin itself.
  5. Conrad black is going to lecture us about being a moral leader? Seriously? That's funny. Maybe Scooter Libby can weigh in on this too.
  6. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have two houses, that are essentially voted in the same way. In the US, one house represents the population as a whole, and one represents the states equally. In Canada, we have one that represents the population as a whole, but what purpose does the second one serve (Senate), if we don't change the model as to how they are elected. It is still possible to do this in a way that makes sense, but only if the formula for determining how many senators each province/territory gets is significantly changed from the current system. Given that Ontario is already underrepresented in Federal elections, this does not bode well for Ontario. Harper will likely be looking to give a bigger voice to the West, given that is where his base is.
  7. Reducing their compensation would make Canadian politics like that of the US. Given low salaries and benefits, the only people interested in the post will be the corrupt politicians that know how to convert their power into financial success through selling influence to decision making in the country.
  8. Well, the logic goes a little something like this. Champagne socialists are wealthy, and they advocate for helping the less fortunate. Since they are live a luxurious lifestyle, they can't really care about the poor because otherwise they would give up everything that they own to help them. Therefore, they are hypocrites. It's a technique used to blur the lines. They want to make us all the same. So, the billionaire glutton who never gives a dime to anyone is exactly the same as the millionaire who gives twenty percent of his wealthy to charities because neither give all that they could to the less fortunate. Obviously, the goal of the 'champagne socialists' is to have everyone shoulder the burden a little, as opposed to only the few that care enough to shoulder the burden disproportionately. Just because someone does not want to live the life of a pauper, does not mean that they aren't willing to make significant sacrifices for compassion. But the greedy don't like to acknowledge that, and instead like to paint everyone short of perfection with the same brush, thereby allowing them to live their lives of guilt-free hedonism, under the illusion that they are as just and compassionate as everyone else.
  9. "or believe in lynching ALL gays" So, the ones that keep it in the closet don't need to be lynched then? Perhaps, your use of the word "all" was unnecessary.
  10. That's classic Con thinking. If anything good ever happens to the economy, it MUST be because of the tax cuts that happened six years ago.
  11. This is hardly the fault of PR. FPTP would allow the non-Orthodox Jews to have better representation only if 1)They had a geographic concentration in a few areas. 2)There were multiple right wing Orthodox groups to split the vote As it stands now, under FPTP, they would likely have a majority in which case they could do what they want unchecked. The problem will only get worse. Perhaps the constant messaging by the Jewish lobby to refer to it as the Jewish state is going to come back and haunt them.
  12. I think you're missing the point. If the NDP claim to support democratic socialist countries, that does not include North Korea by any stretch of the imagination. The NDP do not state in their platform that they will support any country that claims to be democratic, or has democratic in the name, they say they will support democratic nations. Drawing the conclusion that this means they will support North Korea etc, is intellectually dishonest.
  13. It really depends on what Harper and Ford do between now and the election. Currently Ontario is going to vote Conservative in a big way. If other Conservative leaders mess up largely between now and the election, then voters might not be keen on having a full sweep of Conservatives.
  14. This is not such a bad thing. When there are significant barriers to competition restricting the emergence of near perfect competition, government intervention and regulation is necessary. For key industries, there are goals other than profit. Without that, corporations wouldn't bother supplying internet, phone, or other services to remote communities. Ok, I'll give you this one. LOL. That needs to be updated from the 1848 text in which it was taken from. Not entirely sure what they mean by this, but again intervention is necessary when you have near monopolies. Well, you seem to be ignoring the word democratic. Regardless, absolutely nothing wrong with being friends with Chavez or Castro. Harper for instance has no issues with trading with China, Saudi Arabia or Colombia. Do you take issue with that?
  15. There are real problems with this. First of all, just encouraging private schools means that those with extra money can ensure that their children not only receive a better level of education, but also are able to ensure that their children only go to school with children from similar levels of affluence. The real problem is that it creates two-tiers of education. Aside from the fact that private schools don't have to take all the troubled kids, it also means that all the decision makers (usually affluent) don't need to worry so much about public schools, because their children will be going to private schools anyway. That's because private schools are generally more expensive. They need to make profits. If the private system created private schools that only used the grants from the government, and didn't charge additional fees, that would be very interesting. This isn't really proof of them being better, it's proof that the students in those schools score higher on standardized tests. Generally, students that go to private schools are going to come from wealthier families with more engaged parents. There is a correlation between these things and scholastic achievement. You say that Conservatives want people to have the same opportunities, but having two-tiered education doesn't really create a level playing field does it?
  16. So, let's say for argument's sake that the cost of education could be reduced. What would a private model of education look like?
  17. Obviously. That's what a real scenario always looks like - left, centre and right? What about when the Liberals, NDP, Bloq, Conservative and Reform all ran. Can you tell me who was the left, center and fringe in that scenario? It really depends on what political parties emerge. Americans might suggest that one party will get at least 50% because that has been their experience, but the fact is we have no idea what parties will run in the future, nor what vote splitting will occur. In this election, I think it's fair to say that a large chunk of Liberals might have picked the Conservatives as their second choice. In the last election, I don't think it's realistic to think that a large chunk of NDP'ers would have supported the Conservatives as their second choice.
  18. "I for one will be interested to see how the Tory/NDP support firms up and takes shape. " You're kidding right? He doesn't give a flying flip what the NDP think. He has a majority now, and can do what he likes. He keeps his party members in line. If that isn't enough, he' also stacked the Senate full of patronage appointments. It was OK having a minority, where if he went too far, the opposition would band together and deny him. Now, he can do whatever he likes. He doesn't even have to take questions from the opposition. The only positives about the next four years are: He'll have no excuses for making those long awaited senate changes, he has so long talked about. We'll see the real Harper, and in four years we'll decide if that's what we want. My fear is about the changes he makes to favour the Conservatives going forward - things like removing the $1.95 election financing. Currently, if someone gives $100 to a party, the government gives an extra $300 to the party, but no one thinks that needs to go?
  19. I think you're missing the point. Imagine the following exaggerated scenario. Fascist Party 12% of the vote Left Wing Party B 10% of the vote Left Wing Party C 10% of the vote Left Wing Party D 10% of the vote Left Wing Party E 10% of the vote Left Wing Party F 10% of the vote Left Wing Party G 10% of the vote Left Wing Party H 10% of the vote Left Wing Party I 10% of the vote Left Wing Party J 8% of the vote In this scenario, the Fascist party is the absolute last choice for 88% of the population. But, because of the magic of FPTP, they win with the most first place votes. If all of the other left wing parties dropped out except for Left Wing Party B, they would win in a landslide (88% to 12%) Some voting systems, would eliminate all but the top two parties, and then ask the voters which they prefer of those two. Which system to you think most accurately reflects the will of the public? There is something wrong where I have to strategically calculate what party to vote for. There is something wrong with a party where the entrance of a 3rd party with no chance of winning, can tilt the results of the election to a different party altogether. Now, PR is not the only solution, there are many others - such as Alternative Vote, of Preferential Voting, which allows for direct representation from the person you voted for, but allows second place votes to count. Yes, they did have a right to run. But by running, Ralph Nader divided the vote enough to ensure a Republican victory. In future elections, he was not sure whether or not to run for fear or helping the Republicans again. There is something wrong with a system, where the inclusion of a 3rd party screws up the election to the point where a third party will not participate.
  20. So, because some members of a minority have committed a crime, you feel that should give us the right to strip rights from, and discriminate against, all members of that minority? That's kind of the definition of bigotry.
  21. "I have read constant posts from the left about how the corporations aren't "paying their fair share", but I don't think that could be further from the truth. The only people who aren't "paying their fair share" are public servants." Both corporations and public servants produce goods and services desired by the public. Sometimes, however, the desire for the government service is obscured or indirect (parking tickets, tax collecting). Regardless of public or private, we pay for those services - whether it is directly, or through taxation. Now, there are a few differences: 1) Generally, unless in the case of profit-making public enterprises (LCBO), government produces goods and services for the public good - such as education, health care, national defense. 2) Corporations, on the other hand, do not usually produce products for the common good. Therefore, they are subject to a different set of rules than government enterprises. Granted, corporations can do good things, and do not need to be villainized, but there are reasons, why they pay taxes: 1) Resource depletion: Oil, gas, minerals are things that can not be replaced. These belong to the people of Canada. Compensation needs to be paid for extracting these. 2) Environmental damage: Pulpmills, smokestacks, Co2 emissions, etc, can take a toll. 3) Government services: some businesses need extra police services, fire services, trade agreeements etc. 4) Human Resources: unlike many countries, we educate our citizens, and even help them in post-secondary edcuation. This benefits business and is a large reason why they locate here. Same logic applies to the health care and pensions that businesses don't have to pay for. Most of the reasons that you use to justify corporations can apply to public servants, as well, except that government agencies don't pay taxes, largely because government paying taxes to government would simply be unnecessary bureaucracy. "The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else. The larger the public sector grows, the more the private sector has to be encumbered with paying for the salaries of public servants." I'm not really sure what your issue is here. We pay for cars in the form of money. We pay for health care in the form of taxes. In either case, the employees providing the good or service get a wage. The more the public service grows, the more taxes go up, but the more goods and services are provided to people. The only question is who is better able to provide it. "The private sector is the one paying for the public sector to exist." It's a symbiotic relationship. The public sector makes it possible for the private sector to operate. Without government building and maintaining roads, jails, courthouses, schools, hospitals etc - how well do you think the private sector will fare? "Wherever the private sector can provide a good or service profitably, they should be allowed to do so (yes I am advocating two-tier health care)." I disagree with this statement for many reasons. 1) Some things are immoral. It does not matter if they can make a profit. Dog fighting, russian roulette, child prostitution. 2) Corporations are only more efficient than government when there is competition. Without competition, the private sector is no more efficient. The worst thing is an unregulated corporate monopoly. Not all industries lend themselves to competition. 3) Corporations have one goal: profit. When there are other considerations, the profit model does not work. "We need to work within the framework of a globalization and the corporate form of organization to invite more business and private enterprise into our country to support our social wants." If the goal of corporations is to raise tax revenue to fund social programs as you seem to suggest, then it would kind of be defeating the purpose to cut social programs, to afford tax decreases to attract more business. One of the reasons that corporations are villainized is that they are generally the ones lobbying the government hard to reduce taxes. "Canada is a nation that is blessed with vast and diverse natural resources, we could be economic superpowers. Corporations are the true key to the utopian society we all dream of." We can create a business friendly environment without abandoning all rights of labour, cutting social programs etc.
  22. Really, other than the abortion part, it seems accurate. She doesn't actually say abortion is under threat, but she does intimate it to some degree. I think it's possible that we might see an attempt to end partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions.
  23. I have to disagree. FPTP assumes that whoever has more people that support them over any other candidate is who the electorate wants. It does not take into account, which party is the most odious to voters, nor who is the second best candidate. Voters are not able to vote for the candidate they want, instead they vote for the candidate who is first or second in the polls, because they don't want to waste their vote. As a result, speculation and polling plays a huge role in politics. Take the US as an example. The candidacies of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader tipped (arguably) the election in favour of the opposite aligned party. Consequenty, Democrats and Republicans argued vehemently that the entrance of a third party unfairly tainted the election. Something is broken.
  24. Rae, is a good choice, only if he signals this as backing away from permanent leadership aspirations. When the Liberals had no leader, after Dion imploded, and they were desperate for unity with a potential coalition looming, it was Rae who stepped aside, and let Ignatieff have it, for the good of the party. He's an elder statesman who won't embarass the Liberals, while younger leaders figure out whether or not they want to run.
  25. Sometimes it's not really the decision of the party but a poor riding president who makes the decision based on nepotism, or some other random reason. Given that you are making it your mission to run against the NDP in the next election, it would seem that personal vanity and revenge are more important to you than the ideals of any party. Based on that alone, it would seem that the party made the correct decision and I suspect that there is more to the story than we know. Perhaps you are known in the community or by the NDP, and ruled out not on the basis for what you haven't done, but rather on the basis of what you have done.
×
×
  • Create New...