Jump to content

Stephen Best

Member
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stephen Best

  1. You know, Bryan, you might want to read the Election Act one day, and review the legal cases that resulted in the present situation regarding forming political parties, and how they are publicly funded. The official party status canard was dealt with years ago. Do we really need more restrictions on political participation? I thought we wanted to encourage people to be politically involved.
  2. Excellent point. Voters should know about the political parties who are getting their tax dollars.
  3. There are 16 registered parties in Canada. I've met some of the leaders of the smaller parties, and most of them are more thoughtful than the leaders of the major parties. Canadians should hear them.
  4. M. Dancer, I am well aware of the details of the situation. What is clear is that you have made up some rules for yourself which you think should prevail over my view of the rules. Most Canadians, according to a recent poll, don't agree with you. They want to hear Elizabeth May speak in the debates. You, Harper, and Layton want to make sure that they, the voters, don't get to hear Elizabeth May. Why you'd want to prevent people who want to hear May from hearing her is strange. But that's your opinion.
  5. It's not up to you to decide what's a needless distraction. Democracy doesn't work that way. You're just one of over 23 million voters, some of whom want to hear what Layton and Duceppe have to add to the debate.
  6. In the 1988 federal election, before Deb Grey won her 1989 by-election, the Reform Party had 2.1% of the national vote, half what the Greens, who also have their first MP, enjoy now. It wasn't until Reform was allowed into the debate in 1993 that their percent of the national vote increased. So Reform--a Western regional party--was allowed to debate with 1 MP and 2.1% of the national vote. The Greens--a national party--with 1 MP and 4.5% of the national vote are not permitted. Just the sort of thing that the Right would deem fair, don't you think? And, as to the national party thing. Remember that Reform, at the time, excluded candidates from Quebec. The Greens have never excluded candidates from any part of Canada. Let the woman speak!
  7. How the Greens got their MP is irrelevant, particularly when you consider it's how the Conservatives got Emerson and the Liberals Stronach. Crossing the floor is a time honored Parliamentary tradition. Reform leader Preston Manning was in the televised debates when he had only one MP in the Commons, and Reform had less of the popular vote than the Greens enjoy now. Based on precedent, the Greens deserve the same benefit.
  8. Huh? Have you ever seen May debate? Probably not, or you'd realize how wrong you are about her debating skills. It's those skills that Harper and Layton fear.
  9. They have an elected MP. That's the point, and it's one none of the other federal parties dispute.
  10. Can't you guys answer a very simple question? Should May be allowed into the leaders' television debate now that the Greens have an MP? Most Canadians think she should be in the debate. What about you guys? What's so difficult about giving a straight answer with your reasons? You're worse than the politicians you criticize.
  11. Let the woman speak! Democracy and voting isn't about barring people from speaking to voters. Or is it? Regardless of what you think of May, her motives, or her policies, should she be allowed to participate in the leaders' debates on television. Or should Harper and Layton have the right to keep her out? That's the issue. Most Canadians want to hear what May has to say, and want Harper and Layton to let the woman speak. So those of you who don't like May and Dion and whoever, the question is should May be allowed into the televised leaders' debates? It's not about her character and policies or what she might say, it's about democracy. Are you for or against democracy?
  12. I agree with Joe Clark writing in the Globe and Mail "Let Elizabeth May speak" and Chantal Hebert writing in the Star "Networks have lost their journalistic backbone". Harper and Layton are making common cause to keep Elizabeth May out of the leaders' debate. Harper's actions are particularly despicable because before he became Prime Minister he claimed to be a champion of democratic freedoms and freedom speech. But, no more. He's afraid of Elizabeth May. How pathetic. Layton is no better; he's no champion of the grassroots as he claims. As for Dion, he supported May's inclusion in the debate, but said he wouldn't participate if Harper wouldn't be in the debate. What a wimp! Dion, who runs your life you or Harper? Let the woman speak! :angry:
  13. And not a very good one at that, some mothers are saying. Perhaps the reason recent Republican presidents were so poor is that Republican standards for high office are so low. Now being a mother is sufficient to get the nuclear codes. Beyond having a body temperature above that of the room, I can't think of a less rational "qualification" for Vice President. As for someone who would offer it, one can only
  14. Actually, you oppose Barack Obama. Which is a perfectly valid, and defensible position. However, you're unable to come up with any rational reason or facts for doing so. You're convinced there must be some, but you lack the intellectual integrity or rigor to actually figure out what they might be. So, you resort to jibes and silliness to cover up your lack of substance. American Woman was right about you. If you're going to criticize Obama, and there are many reasons to criticize him, for example, his untenable position on Afghanistan and his weak heath care proposals, at the very least offer us some analysis, perhaps one fact, an informed opinion, anything, worthy of consideration. I don't recall even one well thought out argument you've made about Obama. Perhaps you could remind me of one. If you can't come up with one, perhaps you should ask yourself why you oppose Obama.
  15. And nothing more that you consider of any worth whatsoever? Not one thing? Is that your view? Is there nothing you personally could name that Obama has done that has worth? If you can't, it means you don't know much about Obama, which doesn't mean that that he hasn't significant accomplishments to his name. It's your ignorance that's on display here, not Obama's CV, resume. and publications. This may come as a huge shock, jefferiah, but just because you're not aware of something it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. It just means as a previous poster suggested that you are, by definition, an ignoramus.
  16. Are you seriously arguing that 47 years is insufficient time for someone to have done something worth writing about in a memoir? If that's your position, it is as unsupportable as your notion that Obama had never done anything. I won't waste my time on you, but if you have intellectual integrity at all, go to amazon.com enter the keyword "memoir" and gaze on the list of books of people 47 years and younger who've published memoirs. Where oh where do you come up with these wild, completely unsupportable, generalized opinions? As for Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Dreams of My Father, the fact is that they are best selling memoirs because ipso facto he has something interesting to say or people wouldn't buy them. I know you won't do this, but if you had any intellectual integrity you'd log onto Amazon.com and read the comments about The Audacity of Hope. If you did that you realize that your notion about 47 years not being enough time to have something interesting to write about is pure nonsense, once again.
  17. I think most people--including me--understood full well what you meant. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has a CV and resume that very few people, let alone most 47 year olds, can match; despite the fact that Obama had to work for everything he has achieved (absent an influential military family and rich wives, McCain would not be where he is today); you choose to discount and denigrate all Obama's very real accomplishment for no good reason that I can ascertain. I can fully accept people not agreeing with Obama's views or progressive political philosophy. Resorting to falsehoods and baseless personal attacks stinks of something more.
  18. Not so much "funny" as "frightening." It's a cruel irony, and frightening, that control over the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world--the country blessed with the greatest capacity in all of human history to do good--might remain in the hands of close-minded, hateful, avaricious, irrational, easily-frightened, anti-intellectual--and often very, very stupid--Christian fanatics.
  19. Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." What are "explicit sex-ed programs"? Are such things taught in high schools? Examples? Anyone?
  20. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Well done.
  21. That is the point. So when you said Obama hadn't done anything, you were wrong? Is that correct? Perhaps substituting a little precision for bombast and falsehoods would be helpful. So with that settled, you play the POW card again (another well thought out argument?). As for John McCain's military record, we can't be sure what happened to him even as a POW because he won't allow his full military records to be released for public review. All we have are his memoirs, which we know contain many discrepancies, even falsehoods. McCain is hiding his true military record for some reason. I suspect it shows he is not fit to be President, and this is war stories are grossly inflated. You seem to know Obama wrote two memoirs. When you read them (you must have read them to have such negative opinions about them) what was your view about his stories about his years at Harvard? As for the book about Sarah Palin, I don't think it was a matter of someone thinking she was "valuable enough to write home about" as much as Sarah Palin's not a writer. Obama's a writer and has thought about matters which, it seems, enough people care about to turn his books into best sellers. Perhaps when Sarah Palin learns to speak for herself, she'll have much to share with us too.
  22. Are you not an ignoramus? You said Obama had not done anything. Such a false assertion is one an ignoramus might make. Don't you agree?
  23. Another well thought out argument? It's you who said that Obama had not done anything. That's what I challenged. I never asserted that Sarah Palin had not done anything. Indeed, even though she is younger than Obama, a biography about her has been written: "Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment on Its Ear," by Kaylene Johnson. So, do you want me to name one thing Obama has done so that you can admit your failings? Or are you never wrong?
  24. If I name one thing that Barack Obama has done--just one thing--will you admit that your assertion that Obama hasn't done anything is not only wrong, but also a blatant, misleading, petty, dishonest, and disingenuous distortion?
  25. Do you actually understand what a "well-thought argument" is? Because what you've just written isn't one. It's neither well thought out nor an argument. It's an insult. Just for the sake of argument to be pedantic.
×
×
  • Create New...