Manning: a difference of ideas
Chris Belway
Michael DiCola (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Darren Spratt (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
>> One thing I like about Manning, whether I like him or the ideas he presents
>> or not. He presents some different ideas for discussion and debate. And that
>> in itself is good for this country.
>
> He also advocates a non-exclusionary Confederation, i.e. no "distinct
> society" anywhere and equality for all... then he turns around and calls for a
> public debate on the issue of National Unity excluding two key players,
> the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.
>
> This gives your subject head more truth than you might have originally
> intended. I can't see how excluding the opposition from one's debate is
> good for this country.
>
As far as the Bloc is concerned, they are quite clear in that they have no
desire for unity-but for the sake fo argument, I'll agree with you.
but as far as excluding the NDP, there is no harm in that, as they are
completely irrelevant as a party, and will win less than 12 seats again.
Alexa Mcdonough has as much right to be involved in such a serious debate
as DR. Neil Patterson, leader of the Natural Law Party, who would get rid
of all our problems. I see no indignation at his not being present at the
last 2 debates-why was he excluded but Alexa present? What's up with that?
C.
========================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
"Moral indignation is in most cases 2 percent moral, 48 percent indignat
ion and 50 percent envy." -- Vittorio De Sica
========================================================================
Paul Steeves Collins
Chris Belway wrote:
> but as far as excluding the NDP, there is no harm in that, as they are
> completely irrelevant as a party, and will win less than 12 seats again.
Are you a betting man?
--
Paul Steeves Collins uggc://jjj.pneyrgba.pn/~cpbyyvaf
Ottawa - Carleton Institute for studies in Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering Carleton University
PGP Key available at web page. Use ROT13 on address and this sig.
Mike O'Brien
Chris Belway <bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in article
<5m4rla$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
> Michael DiCola (ae...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> > Darren Spratt (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> >
> >> One thing I like about Manning, whether I like him or the ideas he
presents
> >> or not. He presents some different ideas for discussion and debate.
And that
> >> in itself is good for this country.
> >
> > He also advocates a non-exclusionary Confederation, i.e. no "distinct
> > society" anywhere and equality for all... then he turns around and
calls for a
> > public debate on the issue of National Unity excluding two key players,
> > the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.
> >
> > This gives your subject head more truth than you might have originally
> > intended. I can't see how excluding the opposition from one's debate is
> > good for this country.
> >
> As far as the Bloc is concerned, they are quite clear in that they have
no
> desire for unity-but for the sake fo argument, I'll agree with you.
I think we are missing the point. The Bloc is not the *opposition* in this
debate! The debate is about national UNITY. How the KEEP THE COUNTRY
TOGETHER is the issue. I seems pretty clear to me that this agenda is not
shared by the Bloc. Since anyone who doesn't believe the country can be
saved won't care about this debate, why is the Bloc anything but a
detriment to the process? There are 2 sides to this debate: Manning's
decentralized Federation vs. the Distinct Society clause. The Distinct
Society clause is a concept that has been championed by the last 2
governments who were Liberal and PC. That the NDP or any other "fringe"
party happens to parrot the sentiment of the establishment seems non
sequitor to me. The Liberals and the PC's combined represent virtually 100%
of the Federalist vote in Quebec.
> but as far as excluding the NDP, there is no harm in that, as they are
> completely irrelevant as a party, and will win less than 12 seats again.
>
> Alexa Mcdonough has as much right to be involved in such a serious debate
> as DR. Neil Patterson, leader of the Natural Law Party, who would get rid
> of all our problems. I see no indignation at his not being present at the
> last 2 debates-why was he excluded but Alexa present? What's up with
that?
Ditto. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I see the
situation with fringe parties to be a real problem in Canada - it is very
difficult for them to get attention being excluded from debates, etc.
Also don't forget that the proposed debate is not an official government
function, it is part of the Reform campaign and Manning is free to invite
who ever he thinks appropriate.
If you are an NDP voter, it's unlikely you will be persuaded by logical
arguments anyway, so why would an NDP even care if a debate occurs? :-)
> C.
> ========================================================================
> Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
> Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
> "Moral indignation is in most cases 2 percent moral, 48 percent indignat
> ion and 50 percent envy." -- Vittorio De Sica
> ========================================================================
--
/***********************************************************/
The world will not know peace until there is liberty for all.
Mike O'Brien