QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Harper is not trying to strip power away. Changing the laws so you can not donate as much makes it much more fair for all parties. That way corporations have less power of who they want in and allows the individuals influence to be stronger
I think you have a couple things mixed up here, Stephen, as you're also talking about the power of corporations and their ability to donate. As I understand it (and I could be wrong here, as I just started researching this whole thing a few days ago), it was the Liberals who outlawed corporate and union donations. I don't know how they did it, or the timeline of it, but I don't have a problem with that in theory. The government is beholden to act in the best interests of its citizens, not the best interests of businesses or unions. Now, sometimes those interests coincide (I would posit moreso with business than with unions), but sometimes they don't, and in such cases, the government should do whatever is best for its citizens. However, it was the Liberals who did this, not the Conservatives.
QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
(as we all know, individuals cant all afford $5000 in party donations)
This part, I'm also ok with, in theory. But it's the way it was implemented that was meanspirited. As I already said, in an earlier post, that I can see some of the arguments behind doing it, but not in how it was done. The truth of the matter is that the Tories were better at raising smaller amounts from lots of people, whereas the Liberals were better at raising larger amounts from fewer people. So, without much warning or lead-in time, they made what the Liberals were doing illegal. This instantly hamstrung the Liberals ability to finance the spreading of their ideas without affecting the Conservatives' ability to do so. That is how he stripped power away - he limited their ability to spread their ideas.
QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Logicaly speaking you cant tell me that taking away tax money for parties is stripping away power when ALL parties suffer for it.
Actually, I logically CAN say that, when the parties don't all suffer to the same extent. If I lose a dime, and you lose your life's savings, you can't say that we both suffered equally. The Conservatives' would only be losing about a 1/3 of their funding, whereas the other parties would all be losing at least 2/3, I think it was, with the Bloc losing around 80%. Now, if everyone was losing only 1/3, or if everyone was losing 4/5, then I wouldn't have a problem with it as that would be fair. Or if the Tories had said that in 4 years, after the next election, that is how it would be done, I wouldn't have a problem with it as that would give people time to get used to the new rules. But to do it with no warning, when your main opponent had been counting on that money to stay out of the hole...well, to my mind, that's just another example of Harper being a bully.
QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
-quotec-->Like i said before...why are tax dollars going to a party that wants to separate from Canada? If someone wanted to start a terrorist party of Canada should they get tax dollars? where do you draw the line?
I already answered the first part of this - you're the one that didn't respond to it. As for the terrorist argument, as inconceivable and ridiculous as it is, they would first have to cross the threshold that was set years ago: I think it's 5%, but just ask the Greens, as they've only been across it for 2 elections, I believe. In the alternate universe you're talking about, where enough peace-loving Canadians vote for the Canter Party (No, not a party of horse enthusiasts, but the Canadian-Terrorism Party) that they actually do manage to cross the threshold that is needed to qualify then yes, they would get it. Of course, they'd also be in jail for being terrorists, so I doubt they could do much with it.......
And now, back to the real world....
QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Fair democracy lets the people speak not tax dollars speak. You are giving Harper an amazing amount of credit for the liberals own undoing. Its the result of "The law of attraction" within the Liberal party.
You're ignoring a few things, though, like the fact that people need dollars to speak. Money helps the spread of ideas flow faster. If you don't believe me, go start up your own national paper, or tv network. In today's society, communication costs, and it costs a lot.
However, you say that a "fair democracy lets the people speak", but in that case you're also ignoring the fact that Harper didn't let people speak. He gagged the scientists that worked for the government and wouldn't let them speak about scientific fact, he didn't want to let the arts community speak, and he even gagged his own delegates and ministers. Then, even worse, he didn't even speak. I mean, he insulted and lied a lot in the election, but he didn't actually speak. He didn't even release his own platform until after millions of Canadians had already voted in advance polls. So, if you believe in a fair democracy that lets people speak, you shouldn't be supporting Harper!
Of course, the Liberals did things wrong too, but I haven't seen that much evidence that their mistakes were due to bad intent. Their mistakes seem to be more due to process.
Man...life would be so much easier if I was just Supreme Benevalent Dictator of the Universe.....
Have a good one!
JohnS