What right have you lost.

[jacee]

Actually, I took my contention a little too far. As per the article I linked to - it was common knowledge that prior to the fundraising rules being changed, the Liberals raised most of their funds through rich individuals and big business - while the Conservatives tended to raise funds from smaller donations and a broader funding base. That's why they held such an advantage when the rules changed. That's a fact. What I did not mean to imply - because I have no data to support it....is that overall, higher incomes tend to vote either Liberal or Conservative. My point was only meant to relate to how the parties raised their funds.

I think the Liberals were also having difficulty raising funds for the same reason they lost official opposition status - because they had two crappy leaders, so a bit of a confound there.

I think the Conservatives are more associated with manufacturing and resource industries, while the Liberals are more associated with banking, shipping.

Both have some wealthy members and contributers.

And socialist ... Liberals are not socialists.

.

[cybercoma]

To Keepitsimple - I have been trying to find any research and stats that would indicate any correlation between the support for a federal political party and the income of the individual. I have been unable to locate it. Please share your source.

There is correlation between education and income. There is also correlation between education and who people vote for. The less educated someone is, the more likely they are to vote for the Conservatives. The less educated someone is the more likely they are to have a lower income. The Conservatives rely on uneducated voters electing MPs who are against their interests.

[poochy]

There is correlation between education and income. There is also correlation between education and who people vote for. The less educated someone is, the more likely they are to vote for the Conservatives. The less educated someone is the more likely they are to have a lower income. The Conservatives rely on uneducated voters electing MPs who are against their interests.

The world is so easy when you believe such simplistic nonsense. If the intellect displayed here is any guide it is surely not the left that relies upon the more intelligent voters among us, they apparently rely upon those among us who have been deluded into believing in their own intelligence for simply seeing through their, liberals nice, conservatives mean, ideological lens. But keep patting yourself on the back, it's good for a laugh at least. As some of you prove daily, there are no shortage of stupid liberals.

[On Guard for Thee]

The world is so easy when you believe such simplistic nonsense. If the intellect displayed here is any guide it is surely not the left that relies upon the more intelligent voters among us, they apparently rely upon those among us who have been deluded into believing in their own intelligence for simply seeing through their, liberals nice, conservatives mean, ideological lens. But keep patting yourself on the back, it's good for a laugh at least. As some of you prove daily, there are no shortage of stupid liberals.

Or stupid posters.

[Michael Hardner]

Stupid is as stupid posts, remember ? Keep it above the personal...

[Argus]

There is correlation between education and income. There is also correlation between education and who people vote for. The less educated someone is, the more likely they are to vote for the Conservatives. The less educated someone is the more likely they are to have a lower income. The Conservatives rely on uneducated voters electing MPs who are against their interests.

There is no correlation, though, between the education of the voters, and the voter's knowledge of politicians, politics, and the economic and social-political situation in Canada.

That is to say, a degree in Psychology or Computer Engineering suggests no likelihood of making better political decisions. I would say that, in a general way, and just based on the people I've run into in life, those with higher educational levels have higher incomes, and are thus generally more satisfied with life. They have fewer complaints, and also can afford to be generous. That's noteworthy, by the way, as it's hard to be generous when you're struggling to pay the bills. It's also true those with higher educational levels generally come from better off families. They're less likely to have known much in the way of hardship or struggles. I think to a certain degree, those without post-secondary education are more concerned about economic matters, and more likely to vote for a party they think will take care of the economy better. That's particularly so if the voters are middle-class. Poorer voters, the really poorer ones, are more likely to vote for parties which offer them a lot of stuff, like the NDP or Liberals.

I haven't been unduly impressed by the amount of intellect, thought, or knowledge most people I know put into politics. That's particularly so of younger voters, but most of them, regardless of education, tend to have sweeping beliefs about vast areas of political and social policy which lack any real foundation. They don't pay a lot of attention to politics, don't read much at all, and don't ponder the complexities. Simple solutions, sound bytes, smooth talking politicians and television personalities, these are what they go by. They have busy lives, after all, too busy to spend any real time considering or paying attention to what's going on in Ottawa.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is no correlation, though, between the education of the voters, and the voter's knowledge of politicians, politics, and the economic and social-political situation in Canada.

That is to say, a degree in Psychology or Computer Engineering suggests no likelihood of making better political decisions. I would say that, in a general way, and just based on the people I've run into in life, those with higher educational levels have higher incomes, and are thus generally more satisfied with life. They have fewer complaints, and also can afford to be generous. That's noteworthy, by the way, as it's hard to be generous when you're struggling to pay the bills. It's also true those with higher educational levels generally come from better off families. They're less likely to have known much in the way of hardship or struggles. I think to a certain degree, those without post-secondary education are more concerned about economic matters, and more likely to vote for a party they think will take care of the economy better. That's particularly so if the voters are middle-class. Poorer voters, the really poorer ones, are more likely to vote for parties which offer them a lot of stuff, like the NDP or Liberals.

I haven't been unduly impressed by the amount of intellect, thought, or knowledge most people I know put into politics. That's particularly so of younger voters, but most of them, regardless of education, tend to have sweeping beliefs about vast areas of political and social policy which lack any real foundation. They don't pay a lot of attention to politics, don't read much at all, and don't ponder the complexities. Simple solutions, sound bytes, smooth talking politicians and television personalities, these are what they go by. They have busy lives, after all, too busy to spend any real time considering or paying attention to what's going on in Ottawa.

Studies show that those with post secondary educations tend to vote Liberal, or Democratic in the US. Probably because they are more aware of social issues which these parties tend to speak to more.

[Argus]

Studies show that those with post secondary educations tend to vote Liberal, or Democratic in the US. Probably because they are more aware of social issues which these parties tend to speak to more.

Or, as I said, because they tend to be more economically comfortable and confident, and can afford to feel some generosity towards the poor.

The struggling middle class tends to be more worried about economics and more suspicious and resentful towards governments taking money from them to give to the poor.

[On Guard for Thee]

Or, as I said, because they tend to be more economically comfortable and confident, and can afford to feel some generosity towards the poor.

The struggling middle class tends to be more worried about economics and more suspicious and resentful towards governments taking money from them to give to the poor.

Or, maybe because they are better educated.

[WestCoastRunner]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=35#2

Skip skip skip..

This means the peace officer needs to prove his case (within 48 hours) to KEEP the person detained. (reading the following sections). So before you needed a warrant, now you don't even need to lay any charges in any official way. If these knuckleheads were doing their job, they'd have the information at the time of arrest to prove the case. This leaves things open for abuse by authorities.

Now to say that the laws need to be improved or changed, let's take the plots that our police and intelligence services have managed to break up in the years past. IN most cases the police already had informants withion those groups. Meaning they already have the power to do all what they need to do to prevent terrorism.

What new laws would have changed that situation? And what does that mean 'thanks to undercover agents' ???? Think about it.

I agree we can argue about 'entrapment'. However, they clearly were not in the best interests of our country. I don't need to think about it.

Edited February 11, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[GostHacked]

I haven't been unduly impressed by the amount of intellect, thought, or knowledge most people I know put into politics.

It's because people still buy into the whole left/right paradigm. We can look at many members of this board that fit that description.

[GostHacked]

I agree we can argue about 'entrapment'. However, they clearly were not in the best interests of our country. I don't need to think about it.

Actually you do need to think about it. You mentioned that there was no risk from this plot as undercover agents had already supplied the would be terrorists with dud bombs. What new laws would have allowed them to stop this plot as the undercover agents were in control of the situation early on?

Large plots seem to be easy to stop as someone might talk. Lone wolves are something different where no amount of intelligence gathering would be able to stop them. The attack on Parliament hill for example. What would have prevented that incident?

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't been unduly impressed by the amount of intellect, thought, or knowledge most people I know put into politics. That's particularly so of younger voters, but most of them, regardless of education, tend to have sweeping beliefs about vast areas of political and social policy which lack any real foundation. They don't pay a lot of attention to politics, don't read much at all, and don't ponder the complexities. Simple solutions, sound bytes, smooth talking politicians and television personalities, these are what they go by. They have busy lives, after all, too busy to spend any real time considering or paying attention to what's going on in Ottawa.

Something like... the smartest party isn't the best party ? Something like... every stripe of person starts with an instinctive reaction before considering things carefully, including voting ? Something like... each side of the spectrum has intelligence as well as stupidity ?

I agree.

[jacee]

Actually you do need to think about it. You mentioned that there was no risk from this plot as undercover agents had already supplied the would be terrorists with dud bombs. What new laws would have allowed them to stop this plot as the undercover agents were in control of the situation early on?

Large plots seem to be easy to stop as someone might talk. Lone wolves are something different where no amount of intelligence gathering would be able to stop them. The attack on Parliament hill for example. What would have prevented that incident?

There were people close to them who knew of their mental health issues, conversion to Islam and had concerns. Hell, Bibeau tried to get himself arrested!

The lack of appropriate mental health services is a huge issue.

Anyone who is a danger to themselves or others should be in care. Bibeau made threats in court... demanded help... and the judge let him walk.

He should have gone to psych for assessment.

.

[Argus]

Or, maybe because they are better educated.

Unlikely. Unless their post-secondary education was in some way pertinent to government it is not going to help them make better decisions. The university grads I know are every bit as ignorant and shallow in their political beliefs as those who never went to university. The people I know who are more politically aware and informed tend to fall evenly into both educational categories.

[Argus]

Something like... the smartest party isn't the best party ? Something like... every stripe of person starts with an instinctive reaction before considering things carefully, including voting ? Something like... each side of the spectrum has intelligence as well as stupidity ?

I agree.

Again, having met a lot of people who do and do not have post-secondary education I cannot actually say one group is or is not smarter than the other. Intelligence is rarely the deciding factor as to who does and who does not get to go to university.

[On Guard for Thee]

Unlikely. Unless their post-secondary education was in some way pertinent to government it is not going to help them make better decisions. The university grads I know are every bit as ignorant and shallow in their political beliefs as those who never went to university. The people I know who are more politically aware and informed tend to fall evenly into both educational categories.

What you are calling better decisions is of course your opinion. I am only pointing how higher educated people tend to vote.

[Argus]

It's because people still buy into the whole left/right paradigm. We can look at many members of this board that fit that description.

No, it's because most people don't give a damn about politics, and don't bother to keep informed. They see a skit Brian Mercer did or catch a few glimpses of the occasional TV news spot before switching the channel. They don't put thought into the complexities of taxation, economics and spending.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Argus

[jacee]

Or, maybe because they are better educated.

And maybe in doing so they learn that some of their equally educated fellow students came from difficult and disadvantaged homes, but still made it. It tends to humble people to realize that both strength and intelligence can come from poverty and abuse and succeed, makes one more respectful and supportive of social programs and 'a hand up' ... perhaps?

.

[Derek 2.0]

18 pages and yet nobody opposed to Bill C-51 has pointed out the "rights" that it will take away.........

[On Guard for Thee]

And maybe in doing so they learn that some of their equally educated fellow students came from difficult and disadvantaged homes, but still made it. It tends to humble people to realize that both strength and intelligence can come from poverty and abuse and succeed, makes one more respectful and supportive of social programs and 'a hand up' ... perhaps?

.

Im sure thats true. I went to school with people from varied economic etc. backgrounds. The classroom is quite a equalizer, hut I guess this is thread drift.

[eyeball]

18 pages and yet nobody opposed to Bill C-51 has pointed out the "rights" that it will take away.........

It's the rights Bill C-51 will allow police and the state to take away as they see fit in the future. C-51 doesn't have to take any particular fundamental right away per se instead it goes a lot farther than that by weakening them all.

Edited February 11, 2015 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

And as a for instance of that, which has already been mentioned previously, the threshold for getting a warrant has been lowered to where CSIS or police have only to convince a judge that their snooping has shown a crime MAY BE committed from WILL BE, and then they can arrest and detain without even any charge being laid.

[Derek 2.0]

It's the rights Bill C-51 will allow police and the state to take away as they see fit in the future. C-51 doesn't have to take any particular fundamental right away per se instead it goes a lot farther than that by weakening them all.

Here's the legislation, if rights are not being taken away, which ones are being weakened by C-51?

[PIK]

People need to read past the headlines.