quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Fair enough. Your arguement is that ethical is subjective.

Of course ethics are subjective; however, beyond that, just because something is ethical doesn't mean it's right and conversely just because something is unethical does not mean it's wrong.

quote:

I think a better slogan would be "Just because it's legal, doesn't make it democratic"

Better, but still inaccurate... "just because it's legal doesn't mean it reflects our preference." would have been more accurate.

The long and short of this whole debate is that we live in a representative democracy; where we entrust people to act in what they believe is our best interest... it seems what people want is a delegative democracy; where we instruct our delegates on what we believe is out best interest. Both have advantages and disadvantages; however, changing the system would require a constitutional amendment and no one has the balls to open the constitution up for debate.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

i think a reformation of the constitution is whats needed here. But you are right, canadians are too timid for that. This is why we are getting screwed over. Because we collectively have demonstrated our weakness and consistent societal alzheimers when it comes to corrupt politicians.

Canadians need to stand up and demand that there is assurance that this will never happen again

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 i think a reformation of the constitution is whats needed here. But you are right, canadians are too timid for that. This is why we are getting screwed over. Because we collectively have demonstrated our weakness and consistent societal alzheimers when it comes to corrupt politicians.

This simply isn't a big enough issue in the minds of most Canadians to get them to put aside their regional ambitions and grievances if the constitution were reopened... thus any proposed change would fail (since it would contain a veto for Quebec so the west would quash it or it would contain a veto for Alberta and Quebec would quash it). It's not a question of weakness; rather, it's a question of citizens putting national interests above regional ones.

quote:

Canadians need to stand up and demand that there is assurance that this will never happen again

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I think that the ability of the House to form a new government if the government loses the confidence thereof is a very good check on the government; however, I do not believe that it is necessary to do this now... the threat seems to have worked well enough.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This simply isn't a big enough issue in the minds of most Canadians to get them to put aside their regional ambitions and grievances if the constitution were reopened... thus any proposed change would fail (since it would contain a veto for Quebec so the west would quash it or it would contain a veto for Alberta and Quebec would quash it). It's not a question of weakness; rather, it's a question of citizens putting national interests above regional ones. I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I think that the ability of the House to form a new government if the government loses the confidence thereof is a very good check on the government; however, I do not believe that it is necessary to do this now... the threat seems to have worked well enough.

im all for a vote of confidence. But i think it should automatically result in an election.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 im all for a vote of confidence. But i think it should automatically result in an election.

I would prefer that too; however, I wouldn't want to take the option of instilling a new government off the table, as it gives greater leverage... think about this latest situation... without the possibility of being ousted from government without an election the Conservatives would not have been willing to make any concessions, as they have no fear of an election. As a Conservative supporter you may now think that is a good thing; however, what Canadians in general want is for the parties to cut out the partisanship and just make government work... the possibility of being replaced as the government without an election acts as incentive for the government to work with the opposition. It may work against the interests of Conservatives now but it is in the interests of Canadians and at some point the shoe will be on the other foot.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

I think if the opposition believed strongly in what they are saying, they would have no trouble going for an election even this soon. So the threat would be there and canadians would vote accordingly. But the fact is that even as a minority the conservatives were given a mandate. So barring anything substantial (and cutting taxpayer subsidies to parties is not substantial) then they should be allowed to govern. The threat of an election over a minority government is sufficient. If the opposition feels the government cant operate over an issue, they shouldnt have any trouble convincing the public as well, even so soon after the last election. If they cant persuade the public, then they would pay politically for making such a move over an issue that is of non importance.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I think if the opposition believed strongly in what they are saying, they would have no trouble going for an election even this soon. So the threat would be there and canadians would vote accordingly. But the fact is that even as a minority the conservatives were given a mandate. So barring anything substantial (and cutting taxpayer subsidies to parties is not substantial) then they should be allowed to govern. The threat of an election over a minority government is sufficient. If the opposition feels the government cant operate over an issue, they shouldnt have any trouble convincing the public as well, even so soon after the last election. If they cant persuade the public, then they would pay politically for making such a move over an issue that is of non importance.

While I do not disagree with you in theory, the reality is that finances play a major role in elections. Parties do need to consider money and only the Conservatives have any... which is why they have no fear of an election... winning becomes much easier when you are the only voice that can be heard. In a situation like the present the lack of money by the opposition parties acts as a disincentive to running an election... which is why this alternative is necessary. As someone who believes so strongly in democracy you should agree that money should not be the deciding factor in an election.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While I do not disagree with you in theory, the reality is that finances play a major role in elections. Parties do need to consider money and only the Conservatives have any... which is why they have no fear of an election... winning becomes much easier when you are the only voice that can be heard. In a situation like the present the lack of money by the opposition parties acts as a disincentive to running an election... which is why this alternative is necessary. As someone who believes so strongly in democracy you should agree that money should not be the deciding factor in an election.

Perhaps. But if this really was significant enough to consider government change then i suggest taking it to the polls to back that up. Otherwise agree or disagree it is coming from a newly elected, freshly mandated government who has the right to govern as it sees fit. If this is such a huge attack on democracy, the opposition should present it's case as such and outline why it feels it needs to govern to prevent this and then ask the public for a mandate. Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Perhaps. But if this really was significant enough to consider government change then i suggest taking it to the polls to back that up. Otherwise agree or disagree it is coming from a newly elected, freshly mandated government who has the right to govern as it sees fit.

Sorry Jay but this is where you are just plain wrong. They do not have the right to govern as they see fit. Governments have the right to govern at the pleasure of the members of the house... so they have a right to govern as the majority of the house sees fit. Whether this is how it should be or not is what we were discussing before and is a good theoretical discussion Canada needs to have; however, for the time being what should be is not as important as what is. Under our constitution the government only has the authority to govern if the house (not the people) allow them to... and as we said before, no one has the balls to open up the constitution.

quote:

If this is such a huge attack on democracy, the opposition should present it's case as such and outline why it feels it needs to govern to prevent this and then ask the public for a mandate. Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

Again, in a perfect world I would agree with you but in reality you need money to make your case. Perhaps if we were to have elections where all parties received the exact same amount of money per candidate and were only allowed to spend that money in order to run their campaign then I would agree with you... but until then money remains an issue.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... Otherwise its nothing but a coup d'tat

not quite, but I can see how opponents will call it that. the fact remains that it's a legitimate avenue to take if the opposition agrees to band together.

why is that so hard for people to understand? if no single opposition party can win, but they agree to band together to govern, that IS a majority under our political system.

what's troubling here is not a coaltion gov't...but that *this* coalition would include parties with *substantial* political/ideological differences who are each going to require ridiculous concessions to hold the coalition together. If their agendas were mostly similar, with only minor variances, it might be a more palatable option...but that's not the case here. The commonality is a desire for power and a desire to turf the CPC. That is not enough to justify a coaltion, IMHO. I would HOPE that is why a majority of Canadians oppose the coalition.

and it's "coup d’état". if you're going to throw cheesy terms around, at least get them right, lol

It looks like the Liberals want a new leader in place by January 27, 2009. Its a two man race right now.....with MI being the front runner. IMO Bob Rae should quickly accept that he is not the front runner and throw his support behind Michael. The best thing they could do is show a strong support for a leader instead of a divide between two candidates.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48