Subject:
|
The day after disaster
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:54:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
299 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Maynes writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Maynes writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > For one, it assumes that Day will "lie, cheat and steal" (if I may
> > use that expression) like Cretien has, but all evidence is to contrary.
>
> ...The "lying, cheating and stealing" as you allege pretty much comes
> with the territory. I believe all politicians do it to some degree in
> some direction while in power, be it indirectly or otherwise.
> So it's not a concern.
Evidently there's a good number of people east of us that don't mind
being lied to either. It may "come with the territory" as things are now,
but that doesn't mean that's how it should be or would be. That's the
whole point - "it's time for a change."
> The bit I'm worried about is everything else.
> I'm pro-choice.
Then why are you against referenda?
> I think creationism is so utterly backward it's actually laughable.
I think the same about evolution, but it has zero relevance to the election.
> I'm not a big fan of capital punishment.
So? Again, this is an issue too important to be left to an elite few.
> I think racism sucks.
So do I. You imply the Alliance is racist while the Liberals are not,
but if you actually examine the policies of the two, (instead of
listening to liberal propaganda) the facts indicate the opposite.
> Same goes for homophobia.
Again you are implying that you concur with the propaganda.
> > You say you're scared that Day will "impose" his values,
>
> I said no such thing.
OK, those actual words didn't come from your mouth, but given how
what you've said mirrors similar propaganda, you can see why I would
encompass your viewpoint in such a way, right?
> > but one of the primary policies of the Alliance is to let the people
> > determine the values they will have in their country via referendum.
>
> Now that's not only a silly useless concept, it's also rather two faced
> for a party that was on the "this election is an expensive waste...
I don't recall any Alliance rep. ever saying that - I think that was Joe.
> Oh, let's call a big expensive referendum every time some special
> interest group comes up with enough of a push to generate one.
Yes - The process is not trivial or easy - they wouldn't occur on a whim.
> ...And call it again when said group doesn't like the result.
When one respects democracy enough to hold a referendum, one also
respects the results. Unless there was a major shift in public perception
of the referenda issue, (unlikely - at least over a short time frame)
I doubt any special interest could get enough signatures for a repeat.
> (Can you say Bloc? I knew you could). Pfeh.
The two Quebec referendums were called by the government - not initiated
by the people, and were held only in Quebec (not the entire country).
Those are two important differences.
> > Our current situations is Trudeau's values are being imposed on
> > everyone. What you're really saying is "Better the devil you know,
> > than your neighbour."
>
> I most certainly wouldn't trust your neighbor, and probably not my own
> either, given that kind of choice. True Democracy simply cannot work
> in anything as large as a 1st-world nation…
I don't see any reason democracy cannot work. I'll take the will of
the people over the will of the prime minister any day!
SRC
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Today's the day.
|
| (...) Not really, no. (...) for starters, you're extrapolating a bit far. For another, if only it was that simple. It's not the simple political machinations that I'm worried about. The "lying, cheating and stealing" as you allege pretty much comes (...) (24 years ago, 28-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
