And I hate spelling checkers
Taken down to the man and wife level any degree of secrecy puts stress on the party who does not know all about the mate.
So what you are saying is that my relationship with my wife would be improved if I don't keep secret that a certain dress makes her ass look big?
Actually it is conservationism that demands bigger government and often big business to avoid accountability, usually to enforce their moral values on the people and also to create an enemy to get the people behind them, patriotism is always a good way to stop people from thinking. David Cameron is a conservative and like most conservatives, believes the governments role is to spy on the people and support the authoritarian types who run big business
Many socialists want small government and small business to avoid the tyranny that comes from any organization with too much power, they also want the people to be in charge. This is the reason that during the American Revolution conservatives were attacked by the revolutionaries (tar and feathered at first, then their property removed through Letters of Attainment, forced to leave the colonies and finally Lynch pushed extra-judiciary hanging), they wanted the people to be in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is one example
Which is much easier if both parties are suffering from the bad laws, otherwise we get more bad laws as they benefit the more powerful party and repress everyone else.
Good, what goes around comes around and here in Canada we've been being sued by American investors for banning poisons and such.
Recently in the news again was the story of someone who spent 23 years in jail for a rape that he didn't commit (the real rapist finished his sentence by dieing). It was the usual, a drifter or other low life in the wrong place at the wrong time and a police force/DA who really wanted a conviction. It happens enough that just because someone was convicted is not a guarantee that they're guilty. There's also been quite a few people on death row exonerated of their crimes, often by DNA evidence.
You still need land to build so it's tear down a 10-20 story building and kick the renters out or buy up a lot of houses and either way the developer is going to want a return on their investment so they'll build luxury condos and sell for half a million and up.
Wonder if it's like here where most building permits involve tearing down cheap rental property to replace with million dollar condos and many people complaining about getting kicked out of their apartments with no where to go.
Problem with coastal cities is most all the land is already being used and the way to make money is to sell to ever richer people. Even in suburbia there are no rentals being built though you might be able to buy a 300 sq-ft condo for $100,000.
I also have never voted for a candidate that has won
Bill-C51 is the official number. The full name is
Anti-terrorism Act, 2015
An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
You can start here, https://openparliament.ca/bill... and I guess I should actually read the full bill as well, unluckily this government likes to pass big bills which makes for hard reading, especially for non-lawyers.
I'd guess that Beck gets a lot of income from his special events and needs the tax write offs.Seems to be pretty common with foundations (being tax havens). There's been talk here of just getting rid of the tax write off for donations as the government has really been using the taxman to punish those they don't like and one of their favourites is getting really anal about what a charitable organization is and once one government does it so will the next.
Personally I like the local Mennonites, all labour is volunteer so they only have small overhead and seem to support much the same things as I do (eg homelessness locally and various disaster relief) and don't push their beliefs except through the action of being nice people.
Actually it worked pretty good, the number of parties in Parliament doubled, we had a string of minority governments which slowed down on the ass fucking from the politicians and I prefer it to the current government spending 100's of millions of dollars of tax payer money to tell us what a good job they've done.
Elections weren't totally funded from the public purse either, though donations are limited to only from flesh and blood people and limited to just over a $1000.
You could come to Canada where it's the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) being used to target environmentalists and left leaning groups, have declared that anyone anti-oil is a terrorist, if you object to the government monitoring everything then this week you must be a terrorist (before, you were supporting the bullies and before that, the child molesters). Passed an anti-terrorist law that makes the patriot act look tame (law enforcement can break any law except rape in chasing down terrorists), honoured their promise of open government by being so secretive that we're jealous that you guys have the open Obama and lately want to charge anti-Israel groups with hate crimes as talking boycott is not just exercising free speech.
The truth is that all the governments seem to be doing the same thing.
Australia still publicly funds elections?
No. When did they?
Your comment above,
(parties are required to record their electoral spending and get it back on a "how many votes did you get" basis).
sounds like after the election the parties are reimbursed based on "how many votes did you get" basis, which is sorta how it was done here (parties got so much money based on the last election results)
You forgot Newfoundland time, which is a half hour different from Atlantic.