News:

R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!

The best topic

*

Forum gossip thread
Topic rating: 4.43

Other popular topics

Replies: 17842
Total votes: : 7

Last post: Today at 03:26:28 PM
Re: Forum gossip thread by Reggie Essent

G

Re: Canadians Losing Faith In Their Democracy

Started by Gary Oak, December 04, 2012, 11:42:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Romero

#15
December 05, 2012, 06:28:27 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"the fact they take my money and give it to slugs like EU and Homero is both tragic and insulting

The government is paying you to sit on your ass. EU and I work for a living and we're helping pay you to sit on your ass.



"But but but I've paid into my entitlements and I deserve them."



So has the average welfare recipient.



The unemployed shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Anonymous

#16
December 05, 2012, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Romero"That's funny. Singapore is a western liberal democracy. And it's a city state. Being prime minister of Singapore is like being the mayor of Oslo. Two successful western democratic cities.



People unemployed for long periods of time. You mean people like Obvious Li? Welfare recipients. Individual or corporate?



Criminals, crazies and junkies I understand. We all do. But you're crazy if you think we should all just start restricting rights to people who we personally deem undesirable. Citizens who are "unemployed for too long"? A single parent who went on welfare for a couple of weeks before they got a good job? And how do we decide who's a crazy or junkie?  



What you're thinking of isn't democracy. In a democracy, voting is a right.



Canadian women got the right to vote in 1919. Chinese Canadians got the right to vote in 1947. Now we all have the right to vote.




Homy..what she said is pretty straight forward..if you don't contribute to society in general then you do not have a say in how it is run.....period......once upon a time voting was restricted to a select group.....everything worked pretty well...then the more "progressive" politicians decided to make voting all inclusive...a noble goal...however, it has now evolved into a system controlled by special interest groups who neither care about or represent the average citizen.....they are merely interested in doing what is right for them..and not society as a whole

is suspect it will take violence and strife to reverse this mess ,  but reverse it we must

You don't feel I should be allowed to vote either, am I correct?

EU

#17
December 06, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"A person show's some f*cking proof they have skin in the game and you are given a ballot. Can't do that, too bad, next!

Everybody can easily show their tax returns, pay stubs, drug tests and psych evaluations. Election workers are more than capable of personally deciding who's worthy of voting.



It's so simple. What could go wrong?






Maybe Shin Li can be on the panel to decide who votes...I'm sure her personal bias would not affect any of her decisions...just like when she was a mod here....



http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTb5aHg1AfQvJK-LB9PUSMA7R7fWv8wdgmzVBg6DgyE0ioZqYzH">

EU

#18
December 06, 2012, 09:56:41 AM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"

is suspect it will take violence and strife to reverse this mess ,  but reverse it we must




Buauauauauaua wow so cryptic for a skinny lil thing....ya thru violence I think we should be capable of intimidating people away from idea they are allowed to vote, but maybe you'll have to get someone else to do the violence because I think you'd have trouble takin on a squirrel...got any more great ideas on that front?

Obvious Li

#19
December 06, 2012, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Obvious Li"
Quote from: "Romero"That's funny. Singapore is a western liberal democracy. And it's a city state. Being prime minister of Singapore is like being the mayor of Oslo. Two successful western democratic cities.



People unemployed for long periods of time. You mean people like Obvious Li? Welfare recipients. Individual or corporate?



Criminals, crazies and junkies I understand. We all do. But you're crazy if you think we should all just start restricting rights to people who we personally deem undesirable. Citizens who are "unemployed for too long"? A single parent who went on welfare for a couple of weeks before they got a good job? And how do we decide who's a crazy or junkie?  



What you're thinking of isn't democracy. In a democracy, voting is a right.



Canadian women got the right to vote in 1919. Chinese Canadians got the right to vote in 1947. Now we all have the right to vote.




Homy..what she said is pretty straight forward..if you don't contribute to society in general then you do not have a say in how it is run.....period......once upon a time voting was restricted to a select group.....everything worked pretty well...then the more "progressive" politicians decided to make voting all inclusive...a noble goal...however, it has now evolved into a system controlled by special interest groups who neither care about or represent the average citizen.....they are merely interested in doing what is right for them..and not society as a whole

is suspect it will take violence and strife to reverse this mess ,  but reverse it we must

You don't feel I should be allowed to vote either, am I correct?






you own a house and pay property taxes.....

you work and pay taxes.......



you are good to go.......as stated, those that own property and contribute to society should be allowed to vote, those that take from society should not...it's a simple concept.

Romero

#20
December 07, 2012, 01:02:39 AM
The list just keeps growing and growing. Students and now anyone who doesn't own a house. I'm sure you two can come up with a lot more than that!



Who's next? Retirees? Disabled war vets?



I can't believe you guys can't simply personally comprehend the ridiculousness of your Bizarro World democracy. To vote, you would have to show your pay stubs, tax returns, drug tests etc etc... and your title deed better have your name on it!



Voting would take so much time and effort. It'd be a nightmare and barely anyone would vote. And after all that, some election monitor gets to personally decide if you're worthy!



You two are hoping for a Plutocracy, not a democracy. The funny thing is, neither of you would be able to vote under your ridiculous conditions.



What happened to your libertarianism? This is as big in-your-face government as it gets. "You're a productive citizen? Show me your papers."



Democracy. It's better than a couple of people deciding the rights of others based on personal whims. Think about democratic countries compared to countries where voting is restricted. Canada, the US, the UK, Singapore, Japan... compared to Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran...

EU

#21
December 07, 2012, 09:15:58 AM
Reading you posts Shin Li I think the top of your list should be pregnant women then women with hysteria...they obviously just can't think straight enough to vote...

Romero

#22
December 07, 2012, 01:04:31 PM
Oh yeah, parents on maternity leave wouldn't be allowed to vote. Serves those moochers right.

Romero

#23
December 07, 2012, 01:15:44 PM
Why? They don't work, they don't pay taxes and they mooch off the government.

Romero

#24
December 07, 2012, 01:47:50 PM
Yet you want an intrusive government inquisition into your life just to have the right to vote.

Obvious Li

#25
December 07, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: "Romero"Oh yeah, parents on maternity leave wouldn't be allowed to vote. Serves those moochers right.




maternity leave would be abolished as another boondoggle and waste of tax payers money....why the fuck should i pay for you to have kids......give your head a shake sparky....



certainly there would be age qualifications for voting as well..i'm in favor of age 30 plus but could be talked in to 29 plus.....Shen Li would get a sponsors exemption of course...

Romero

#26
December 07, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"A deed, a T4, proof of income or soemthing like that intrusive? Enumerators before elections are a lot nosier than that.

Don't forget the pay stubs, drug tests and property tax receipts.



Nah, having to show a title deed(which would have to be in your name), property taxes(in your name), T4's, tax returns, pay stubs and drug tests isn't intrusive at all!



Voting wouldn't be much more difficult than filing taxes or applying for a bank loan. While peeing into a cup.



What a wonderful democracy. Millions of people waiting in line all day long fumbling around with stacks of documents.



You really have no idea what a joke it would be. Nobody would bother voting. You and Obvious wouldn't.

Romero

#27
December 07, 2012, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: "Obvious Li"maternity leave would be abolished as another boondoggle and waste of tax payers money....why the fuck should i pay for you to have kids......give your head a shake sparky....



certainly there would be age qualifications for voting as well..i'm in favor of age 30 plus but could be talked in to 29 plus.....Shen Li would get a sponsors exemption of course...

What do you think, Shen? Maternity leave should be abolished?



And now yet another restriction - age. Except there would be an exception if some guy in Saskatchewan approves.



I knew exactly where this is all going. Pretty soon you two are going to be the only ones allowed to vote! What an amazing coincidence!

Leopardsocks

#28
December 07, 2012, 07:29:57 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"A deed, a T4, proof of income or soemthing like that intrusive? Enumerators before elections are a lot nosier than that.

Don't forget the pay stubs, drug tests and property tax receipts.



Nah, having to show a title deed(which would have to be in your name), property taxes(in your name), T4's, tax returns, pay stubs and drug tests isn't intrusive at all!



Voting wouldn't be much more difficult than filing taxes or applying for a bank loan. While peeing into a cup.



What a wonderful democracy. Millions of people waiting in line all day long fumbling around with stacks of documents.



You really have no idea what a joke it would be. Nobody would bother voting. You and Obvious wouldn't.


Wrong.



Every voter has to register to be entitled to vote.



This is done LONG before elections are held.



Registration may require certain conditions viz;



If you have been unemployed since the last election, you will not be registered, the exemptions being retirees. People on social welfare for whatever reason are not exempt.

If you have committed an indictable crime since the last election, you are not registered.

It you are not a citizen, you cannot be registered.

If you are in prison, you cannot vote.

If you have been convicted at any time in the past for treason, fraud against the Commonwealth, or any act injurious to the Commonwealth, including incitement, you cannot vote.

If you have not resided in the country for at least 2 years since the last election, you cannot vote, the exemption being if the period between elections is less than the required statutory period. (eg, 3 yrs because of an early election).



No registration slip, don't bother attending.



You must register no more than 3 months prior to the election being due...with, of course, fixed election periods such as the US.

Romero

#29
December 07, 2012, 08:45:22 PM
Most of those are already requirements.



In Canada you don't need to be registered to vote. Most voters are registered, but I guess we can add yet another requirement to the ever-expanding list.



Register long before elections are held? Anything can happen in that time. People can become unemployed, go on welfare... I thought they shouldn't be allowed to vote? No, one would have prove they're employed, own a home, paying taxes and not on drugs every single time they vote. Municipal, provincial, federal, referendums...



What an incredible hassle. I can't believe the three of you of all people would insist on such big government intrusion.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions