Long term unemployed to be asked to give back something

[gibbleking]

some times i do try to be all growed up....

 

[IDB1]

the right to vote and the act of voting seems to be alien to 60 percent of the eligable adults allowed to vote.why grumble about the oppressive nasties incharge if you fail to exersise your right to democratically remove them when you get the chance.

I've only ever voted 4 times (I think)..

And I think that was 3 local and the last general elections.

That said, up until voting in the last general election I've not moaned about the government either.

I love living in this country.. pretty much always have..

p.s. what's been achieved in 21 pages of debate on this subject??

Genuine question.. just asking..

 

[silverclaws]

Yes, voting is a problem and those who don't exercise their right to vote, which is after all the only say one might have in the running of their country, have no rights to say anything about the government or how the country is run.

I do favour something like the Austalian approach to voting, simple everyone votes or pays a fine which I believe is around a hundred dollars, not a lot, but enough of a threat to make people go and scratch their mark on a voting slip. But the Australian system has one extra box that we do not have and I at least think it would be a worthy addition for those that normally feel disinclined to involve themselves in the running of their country. That option I believe simply says 'none of the above', but once in a voting booth interest might change.

But with ourselves we have a party in power who do not represent the majority of the country, but seeing as some chose not to have a say in the election process we have what we have perhaps due to them, the non voters could have made a difference.

To those that say there is no point voting because it is always the same whoever gets into power, to that I have to agree, but nothing will change if people do not make the effort to change it, voting reform is in my view a step in the right direction.

But as to thoughts that the less people who vote, the more chance the fringe loonies will get into power is wholely correct for what we have had comes with dwindling voter attendance, it's happening unless people wake up.

 

[marin man]

Nothing has been achieved,and if not for a certain person,who posts up vitriolic and subtley hidden digs at other people on here when only being a member for a couple of weeks it would have died a death ages ago.

 

[silverclaws]

But it's conversation and for those that feel the need to talk, then this is the right place for it, or else why bring up anything in the first place, may as not bothetr having forums. Websites are communication we are communicating.

 

[sgw]

But you have no democracy!

Rubbish. We have the degree of democracy afforded by our system.

A degree of democracy makes as much sense as a degree of virginity.

Over half the seats in the country are "safe" for one party or other. That means that the electorate in those seats have no choice, no voice and no representation.

More rubbish. By definition these seats are actually getting more democracy than others. Perhaps you need to study Wiki some more before posting...

By your definition perhaps.
I don't need Wiki to define what should be obvious but for your benefit:-

"The fact that voters in safe seats usually have little chance to affect election outcomes - and thus, those voters' concerns can theoretically be ignored by political parties with no effect on election outcome - is often regarded as undemocratic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_seat

The Victorian concept of a "work ethic" is a contrivance to dupe workers at the bottom of the heap into loyally and uncomplainingly producing more profit for the exploiters at the top.

More complete tosh.

The origins of the work ethic can be traced back through the centuries.

Yes the origins can indeed be traced back as far as The Protestant Reformation. However "origins" like "degrees" are by definition not the full and finished product. The term was first used by Weber in the early 1900's in his book "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/ethic/pro_eth_frame.html

Not sure of the relevance of your inaccurate point anyway as I clearly referred to, and stated, "The Victorian concept" of a work ethic. This is widely understood and used to describe the result of the secularisation of earlier puritan principles to encourage and direct labour into meeting the increasing demands of the industrial revolution.

http://www.coe.uga.edu/~rhill/workethic/hist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

You really are just making all this up aren't you

No. I have this time included links to documentary background to my comments. I don't suggest that these prove what I say but they do disprove your suggestion that these ideas exist only in my mind. (btw...where do you get yours?)

Supreme arrogance to talk as though you are educating anyone.

Talk about making things up! Your own post being an example a modest, benign and non dictatorial posting I suppose

It's all just opinion and dismissing others as rubbish doesn't make yours any better than anyone else's. It just smacks of desperation.

 

[marin man]

But it's conversation and for those that feel the need to talk, then this is the right place for it, or else why bring up anything in the first place, may as not bothetr having forums. Websites are communication we are communicating.

Not aimed at you silverclaws,sgw seems to think that he should be funded to sit on his backside for the rest of his life while people like me and a few million others should keep paying for his lifestyle to be sustained.....

NOT ON MY WATCH

 

[IDB1]

But it's conversation and for those that feel the need to talk, then this is the right place for it, or else why bring up anything in the first place, may as not bothetr having forums. Websites are communication we are communicating.

Not really found forums to be about talking round in circles for a few days.

Mostly they have been about people meeting like-minded individuals (or groups) and for gaining knowledge.

'Off Topic' sort of develops from there, very much secondary.

Just my experience from owning a few and being a member of dozens more over the last several years..

That's beside the point though.. I wasn't criticising 21 pages of circular talking, was just asking if that's what it's been - purely out of curiosity.

 

[sgw]

I wasn't criticising 21 pages of circular talking, was just asking if that's what it's been - purely out of curiosity.

I think you are right, unfortunately that is what it's been. Having a constructive exchange of views takes effort and discipline. Preventing one is far easier and apparently amusing for some.

But no one is forced to either read or contribute.

 

[rosstheboss]

Stop talking and get a bloody job!!!!