What do you think of Bridgette DePape's protest

[Don]

She said no such thing. the fact is, a majority of Canadians voted against Harper. If you are gonna say ..eh! it's our system. It may be a system, but how can you call a system that delivers a majority govt that was NOT the preference of 60% of voters a "DEMOCRACY"? By that stretch Bahrain is a democracy.. since about 40% of people support the leader.

Where were you when Jean Chretien was PM and the Liberals had 40% of the vote???? I'm waiting!

You only care because the guy you hate won. It's childish really. I accepted the fact that Chretien had a majority all those times. The fact that he was my guy made it easier. Now Harper has a majority and while I voted Liberal (another new flash nottyboi, you vote for your local MP, not the PM), I accept he has a majority even though he wasn't my first choice. Being able to accept the rules when it doesn't go my way.... that is call MATURITY

 

[fuji]

I never said voting should be based on income. I said it should be based on being a taxpayer, and ideally it would be proportional to the amount of tax one pays. Just as a shareholder of a company is given one vote per share, the taxpayer should be given one vote per x number of $$$ they contribute to us all. Seems this most fair of methods is despised by so many for some reason.

Again, disenfranchising people is stupid, and will ultimately lead to violent revolution. Democracy is a superior form of government because it turns violent politics into peaceful politics. You would reverse that, and create an oligarchy where only the wealthy have a say in things. Sooner or later, the non-wealthy will act against that.

 

[train]

A University Graduate who dispite that fact, seemingly is totally unable to grasp that there is a time and a place for everything; and everything in its time and place.

As a Senate Page she was a minor official of the Upper House; you don't interrupt the Speech from the Throne for political grandstanding particularly so in the immediate wake of a decisive election. She has brought discredit on the Senate and disgrace on herself.

I trust she enjoyed her 15 seconds and a horrific job refernce - then again perhaps her dream job has always been in the "counterculture."

Agreed as should everyone regardless of political preference.

 

[whollycheeses]

Again, disenfranchising people is stupid, and will ultimately lead to violent revolution. Democracy is a superior form of government because it turns violent politics into peaceful politics. You would reverse that, and create an oligarchy where only the wealthy have a say in things. Sooner or later, the non-wealthy will act against that.

Currently, we exclude anyone under the age of 18 (an arbitrary age we decided as a society that people become 'adults') from voting. Is disenfranchising all those people stupid? No, because they're not ready to vote and we've all agreed to this. Likewise, people who don't contribute to the tax base shouldn't be considered ready to dictate how that money is distributed. It's that simple, and by definition democratic.

 

[fuji]

Currently, we exclude anyone under the age of 18 (an arbitrary age we decided as a society that people become 'adults') from voting. Is disenfranchising all those people stupid? No, because they're not ready to vote and we've all agreed to this. Likewise, people who don't contribute to the tax base shouldn't be considered ready to dictate how that money is distributed. It's that simple, and by definition democratic.

Wrong. You're proposing that people get more votes the more money they make. That is not democratic. That is oligarchic. Someone who earns only a small amount of money and pays very little tax is essentially shut out of your system for life, their vote is never going to amount to anything--it'll be swamped by the votes of a few people who make a lot of money.

It's a stupid proposal. The government is not a corporation and its functions greatly exceed the mere management of tax dollars. For example, the government is responsible for enacting the law--what is or isn't considered criminal. I fail to see why the amount of money you earn should mean you should have a greater say on public morality. It's absurd and stupid.

 

[Possum Trot]

To get back on topic. She was clearly out of place and the sanction was appropriate.

 

[whollycheeses]

Wrong. You're proposing that people get more votes the more money they make. That is not democratic. That is oligarchic. Someone who earns only a small amount of money and pays very little tax is essentially shut out of your system for life, their vote is never going to amount to anything--it'll be swamped by the votes of a few people who make a lot of money.

Since the middle class pay the majority of taxes your argument that it's oligarchic is incorrect. The largest group is represented, not a small controlling group. Also, I think it's sad that you feel someone who currently earns a small amount of money is stuck in that demographic for life. Most people try to better themselves and so as they do, they would pay more tax and have a bigger say in what happens.

It's a stupid proposal. The government is not a corporation and its functions greatly exceed the mere management of tax dollars. For example, the government is responsible for enacting the law--what is or isn't considered criminal. I fail to see why the amount of money you earn should mean you should have a greater say on public morality. It's absurd and stupid.

That's the problem; the government is absolutely a corporation and if we treated it like one we wouldn't have $500 billion in debt. The laws would continue to be written by democratically elected members of parliament as they are today, so your final statement is nonsense.

 

[dirk076]

harper does not represent my vision of canada and i support this girl and her courage.........hope we see plenty of this peaceful civil disobedience in the next 4 years. Harpo may be our dictator for the next few years, but we ( the 60 % who voted against him) need to let him know that we don't agree with him .

You forget the 60% of us who opposed that little tyrant fucktard Chretien.

 

[fuji]

Since the middle class pay the majority of taxes your argument that it's oligarchic is incorrect.

Again, your scheme PLAINLY is meant to give more voting power to a minority of people who have a lot of money, while disenfranchising a large number of people who are poor. That is a recipe for violent revolution, the sort of thing that the establishment of democracy put a stop to. It's dumb. It will lead to entrenched poverty where those who are poor lack the political power to change the things that keep them poor, while those who are rich are able to use their enhanced voting power to maintain barriers to entry that prevent the poor from competing with them. Really, really dumb.

Those with money are ALREADY over-represented in the political system by way of their ability to make campaign contributions (at all) and by way of their ability to publish their views widely in the media. That's already more than enough extra power.

That's the problem; the government is absolutely a corporation and if we treated it like one we wouldn't have $500 billion in debt. The laws would continue to be written by democratically elected members of parliament as they are today, so your final statement is nonsense.

The government absolutely is not like a corporation and is subject to economic conditions completely unlike a corporation. That sort of wrong-headed thinking is a disastrous way to think about government.

Consider that a business only engages in operations that are profitable to shareholders, and the only mechanism by which shareholders profit is the collection of revenue. In a government what is the return on, say, spending money to clean up some environmental contamination? The public benefit enormously from things like that, but it looks like a pure cost center to a government operating as a corporation. In other words, governments following a corporate profit seeking model would make the wrong decision--disastrously wrong--with respect to projects which provide benefit as a public good, rather than as a revenue stream.

Also your notion about debt is just wrong in two ways. First government debt is unlike corporate debt, secondly, corporations--if you actually knew anything about them--have a strong incentive to maximize their debt, as the increased leverage maximizes profit. Corporate debt levels, say at a bank, are usually limited by... government policies. Whoops.

Governments are NOTHING like corporations and shouldn't be run like corporations.

 

[blackrock13]

To get back on topic. She was clearly out of place and the sanction was appropriate.

Kill joy!!

 

[fuji]

To get back on topic. She was clearly out of place and the sanction was appropriate.

So then, no issue with her behavior? She plainly did anticipate losing her job.

 

[happywanderer]

Sure, just over 60% of Canadians voted against Harper, but of those people, how many do you actually believe all want the same thing(s)? The Coalition that Dion tried so successfully to glue together, a Coalition of the Absurd really, would have fallen apart as soon as one Party wavered or changed their minds over an Issue. Yes, Harper won but he did so in the weakest form of Government, a Democracy (as some may say), where sometimes someone like our PM can walk right up the middle between 2 squabbling groups and win the day... just like Rae did here in Ontario 20 years ago. IMO, she's a naive fool and of course NOW and the Star will come to her defense as they usually fall under the same category. Maybe she'll harness that passion and become an absolute nutjob like Heather Mallick... the world always needs more fools to keep us amused.

 

[Mervyn]

"60% of Canadians did not vote against Harper",

This is wrong on a few counts.

-First, not every Canadian voted , so the above statement is false.

-Secondly, there is no way of knowing why someone voted for the person they voted for, to make the assumption the vote was only because they were against Harper is pure speculation and not based on any obtainable facts whatsover.

-Thirdly if someone is voting AGAINST Harper,that in turn means the party that is the recipient of thier vote does not neccessarily have thier support either.

As a side note, even those who don't like Harper , are not against every thing he does , I was never a fan of Chretien or Trudeau and would never vote for them, but that doesn't mean I was against everything they did.


As for this young women, she just made herself look bad.

 

[sleazure]

Only a coward would leave a country because he/she did not like the system. True patriots fight to make their country better.

Tell that to the Beothuks if you can find one. They stayed until the bitter end.

Give the Dalai Llama a plane ticket and see how that works out for him.

Ask your granny why your family came to Canada. Unless you happen to come from a First Nations background, you're about to throw a rock through the glass house you're living in.

 

[whollycheeses]

Again, your scheme PLAINLY is meant to give more voting power to a minority of people who have a lot of money, while disenfranchising a large number of people who are poor.

No, it's plainly meant to give EVERYONE who contributes a fair say. I'll keep repeating that since you can't grasp it.

The government absolutely is not like a corporation and is subject to economic conditions completely unlike a corporation. That sort of wrong-headed thinking is a disastrous way to think about government.

Let me clarify... government should be run like a NON-PROFIT corporation. If you want an example of how well running government like a corporation can work you don't need to look further than the city of Mississauga. That city is even debt-free too. Amazing. It works.

Anyway, back on topic. She's a shit disturber and nothing but an embarrassment to herself.

 

[fuji]

So someone who quits her job to stay home and raise her kids contributes less to society than someone who allows her children to grow up in the food court at the mall?? A man who takes a pay cut to join the army and fight for his country should get less of a say than his selfish brother who refused that civic duty in order to become rich? A doctor who chooses to volunteer in an unpaid charity role should have fewer votes than one that aggressively over bills?

Someone who earns their income from investment should have less say than someone who earns the same income from employment?

Your idea is not "fair" it is ridiculously judgmental.

 

[blackrock13]

No, it's plainly meant to give EVERYONE who contributes a fair say. I'll keep repeating that since you can't grasp it.

Let me clarify... government should be run like a NON-PROFIT corporation. If you want an example of how well running government like a corporation can work you don't need to look further than the city of Mississauga. That city is even debt-free too. Amazing. It works.

Anyway, back on topic. She's a shit disturber and nothing but an embarrassment to herself.

It's plainly meant to give EVERYONE who contributes money a fair share. Those who don't or can't work enough to pay taxes, TOO bad. That just fucked.

The fact that there's someone else still debating this with you tells me I'm not alone in this view.

The fact that you keep repeating it doesn't make it any more right.

Are you saying that someone who makes a 6 figure salary, but through proper legal investment and money management pays no income taxes, cannot vote, but a person who works at close to minimum wage lives in his parents basement and adds little to the economy and lives life a beer case at a time, can?

 

[basketcase]

Sure, just over 60% of Canadians voted against Harper,...

Actually I voted against Olivia Chow since that is who was running in my riding (I would have voted against her no matter what party she was in).

 

[K Douglas]

She was interviewed in a video after she was fired. She made the point that conservative values are not the values of a majority of Canadians and the popular vote reflects that. Unfortunately our electoral system has delivered absolute power to a government that does not align with the values of our nation. So the only viable means left to restrain it's agenda is through protest. That is a VERY COSTLY and VERY DANGEROUS side effect of a broken democracy. You can argue it was the same when the Libs were in power, but not so. If you add up NDP and Liberal votes you have a natural majority and their values are both left leaning....like our country.

We have one of the best countries in the world, our freedom and system of gov't is to be envied. The British parliamentary system works, it has worked for almost 150 years. We shouldn't change a thing. This DePape chick should be grateful instead of pullling classless stunts like she did. No respect.

 

[nottyboi]

Where were you when Jean Chretien was PM and the Liberals had 40% of the vote???? I'm waiting!

You only care because the guy you hate won. It's childish really. I accepted the fact that Chretien had a majority all those times. The fact that he was my guy made it easier. Now Harper has a majority and while I voted Liberal (another new flash nottyboi, you vote for your local MP, not the PM), I accept he has a majority even though he wasn't my first choice. Being able to accept the rules when it doesn't go my way.... that is call MATURITY

When Chretien as in power I felt his legitimacy was impeded by the fact he did not have a natural majority. Overall his policies were more in keeping with my preferences, but that does not mean I felt he had a right to claim a strong mandate from Canadians. Yes I know we vote for our MP, but even the MP that won my riding only got about 40% of the vote. What right does he have to claim he represents the riding?