You don't KNOW JACK!

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

www.davidaskew.ca

if your're not voting NDP

you don't know JACK!

Provocative indeed. Questioning the

intelligence of those who would disagree

with you is a good way to start a debate.

I consider the NDP unfit to lead a nation

(or a province) for more reasons than I

care to type.

I suppose that I don't know "JACK" (a

clever reference to "Jack" Layton?), but I

don't want to know the JACK you peddle.

-Andrew

"I consider the NDP unfit to lead a nation (or a province) for more reasons than I care to type."


Since you have so many, throw us a bone and tell us one good reason why the NDP would be any worse (as opposed to simply different) than any other party.


CK

I didn't post the advertisement, I simply

said that I disagree with this fellow's

methods and politics. I don't think that

Mr. Askew's web site does anything but

perpetuate the tired NDP class-warfare

smokescreens.

I will respond to the eight topics that the

NDP are touting:

1) Create opportunities and jobs in a

green and prosperous economy.

(For example: the NDP proposes to build

greener cars and generate cleaner

energy.)

The NDP isn't GM nor is it a Ontario

Hydro. Building a "green economy" will

happen when industry can get the best

margins out of said development. The

government can steer a little, prod a little,

but certainly can't build -- we don't want

to be stuck with something like the

Malaysian government's Proton

automobile manufacturing company (a

real stinker).

test

<br>

test

2) Improve public health care with

innovation - not privatization.

Both these examples are not innovation.

One involves giving money (something

less than innovative), the other involves

policing/legislating private providers out

of Canada. Public/Private partnerships

need to be given some scrutiny before

dismissing them as evil. The system is

broken and the dollars to fix it (as is)

aren't there. To scare people away from

this idea without an alternative is

irresponsible.

3) Invest in cities and communities

through clean water, housing and transit.

(For example: the NDP proposes a

permanent national infrastructure

program to create jobs that ensure clean

drinking water and healthy waste

strategies.)

Don't cities already do this (or try to do

this)? This is in the interest of cities, so

why not let them have more of the gas

tax so that they can be more successful

in these fronts. Establish standards if you

must, but transfer responsibility to the

people directly affected seems to be the

best way to go. I hardly understand why

this is high up, it seems that are cities are

doing fine on these fronts.

4) Expand access to post-secondary

education.

(For example: the NDP proposes to work

to make quality college and university

education more affordable.)

University is very affordable here. How

much more affordable (free?) do we want

it? Do you want more people going to

university, more *poor* people going to

university, or just fewer debt-ridden

students? It is interesting how those that

don't go to university (many of whom

get into organized labour) wind up

subsidizing others who get educated and

then make more than their sponsors.

There should be some quid pro quo for

higher education given the financial

benefits in going through it.

5) Make life more affordable and secure -

starting with protecting pensions,

removing GST from family essentials and

expanding childcare.

These have merit, but are very costly. In

some cases, we will have to trade-off

based on cost/benefit, but the NDP

doesn't really discuss costs...

6) Strengthen Canada's independent voice

for peace, human rights and fair trade on

the world stage.

(For example: we will not be part of the

weaponization of space.)

Star Wars (SDI) or whatever it's called

now, is a defensive system (not a

weapon) that will probably never work.

If it does work, you would like to think

that we would fall under its blanket.

More importantly, we could help develop

and sell components to the system if it

makes sense. I am not a strong believer

in the system, but it could be lucrative.

"Fair Trade" is perhaps the most

disturbing term known today. It seems

to involve paying people our market

standards in their market (huh?). This

means that we make it less cost effective

to trade with other markets (it costs us

more) and we transfer more wealth for

less product. It hurts the economic

development of the Third World (why

innovate when you are getting paid above

market?), it is ludicrous to demand of

businesses and consumers ("pay more

than they ask for -- trust us!") and is

impractical. Free Trade is and will

continue to be the great economic

equalizer and the great catalyst for

innovation. "Fair" Trade will do neither.

7) Restore integrity and accountability in

government.

(For example: toughening up rules for

lobbyists.)

I agree! I think that this is the most

important issue at stake (honest...). This

includes electoral reform, free votes in

the house, an elected or ejected senate,

independent government auditors, and

every other oil and cog that makes the

machine run better and more

transparently. I have only heard the

Alliance/Conservatives talk about this for

an extended period of time (10+ years)

and it's good that it makes the 8 points

of light of another party.

8) Balance the budget.

Wow, you can do all the above AND this!

I consider this a higher priority than #8,

but at least it is on Layton's radar.

Responding to:


How much more affordable (free) do we want post-secondary education?


Universities have been raising tuition wildly since they were allowed to do so. If education IS affordable (I would ask, affordable to whom), it soon won't be. How can you ever object to throwing taxpayers dollars at education - I can't think of a higher priority and yes, FREE post-secondary education would be the IDEAL. Talk about civilized!

Always a quandary... give me higher taxes and give me free post-secondary education... or give me lower taxes and make me pay for my post-secondary education directly.


Regardless of where I stand on the issue, I suppose the 'correct' answer depends on whether you believe in user-pay or rich-pay society. Neither is right or wrong... just different beliefs.

So, Andrew, I waded thru yr reasons... well, actually, I kinda skimmed 'em. Near as I can tell, your reasons for believing the NDP are unfit to govern are:


1) you disagree with their policies


2) you don't think they can keep all their election promises.


Again, I suggest to you that while they might be compelling reasons for YOU not to vote for them, it's in no way a proof that they are unable to lead the country.


CK


p.s. I'm a union mbr, and a non-univ. grad. I would support free or near free post-secondary training even though there's little or no chance it would ever do anything for me except raise my taxes and maybe make it easier for my child to get the education she wants. Why. Because we pay taxes to institute programs that benefit the country as a whole. Demanding a direct benefit for every tax dollar one spends is unrealistic and selfish.

Andrew apparently never said "I can prove" he's unfit to lead the nation, he said that he considers them unfit to lead a nation.


The reason I believe that the NDP is not a viable alternative is that their policies are self-defeating in the long term.


Merely "balancing" the budget means that the debt is not paid down at all, and that in the event of emergencies (unforseen expenditures) that the debt grows. However we know that if the debt grows that the servicing of the debt also grows (The amount we pay in Interest)



As that amount grows we have LESS money to spend on healthcare and education.



As we have LESS to spend on health and education we have less services in health and education,



The NDP's platform is self defeating, and so I certainly won't be voting for them. If you need proof, simply look at the amount of the budget that has been spent servicing the debt over the last 30 years. I do wonder what the total cost of interest is since we got into debt, but I'd bet you that it's more than the size of the debt.


You'd think that money could be spent better on delivering healthcare and education... but it can't be.

Andrew said he had more reasons than he could type. Yet he hasn't provided any reasons why they couldn't do it, just reasons why he doesn't want them to do it.


There's no point in debating the various platforms with somebody who's reason for believing something is little more than faith that he's right.


The NDP couldn't govern the country? Proving it is a far cry from believing it.

I don't know if you actually read his post, but it says that he "considers" not he can "prove" and more reasons than he "cares" to type, rather than "could" type.



I on the other hand believe they could govern the nation, I just don't agree with their approach, and so I'm going to vote for a party whose approach I consider more effective for my values as a Canadian.

No offence Dugly, but....


b*llshit!


He called the NDP "unfit to govern" and said he had more reasons than he could type. Yet he hasn't come up with a single reason why they are "unfit to govern."


Did you read the post?

Indeed, he came up with alot of reason why he would <b>like</b> them to govern.

Er, that would be "wouldn't like them to govern".


When oh when are we going to be able to re-edit entries on this message board.....

Yes, he came up with some reasons he wouldn't LIKE them to govern.... I guess in some peoples minds that's equivalent to reasons he considers them unfit.


In this case I suppose he's making the following correlation


Reasons I don't want them = reasons to make me consider them unfit



Seems pretty reasonable.

Thanks to Dugly for being an advocate. Let's not get lost in the semantic argument about what "unfit to govern" means. From my perspective, it means that they would comprise a (predictably) poor government. It's not meant to be something that can be proved deductively (nor inductively).



Anyhow, my poorly formatted barbs were only written here because I wanted to counter the advertisement ArtGuy posted. I am confident that few peoples' opinions will be swayed. I also think, that we should stop this thread and start a new one about the late Ronald Reagan. It will be interesting to see how history treats him...



-Andrew

re: unfit


It's the difference between can't and shouldn't

that's the sticking point here. You seem to think

unfit can mean either. I don't think so.


So, to me, if you're saying can't, then there's no

point in discussing the issue. If you mean

shouldn't then there's room for debate.


Exact-ness in language makes for clarity,

ambiguity, esp. w/r/t textual back and forth is

confusing.


I'm curious Andrew as to whether you think the

Libs or the Progressive Reform Conservative

Alliance are the viable alternative.


As for Ronald Rayguns.... RIP Ronnie and not a

tear shed by this genuine Gen X'er.



For someone who is so meticulous about language, you should also acknowledge the difference between 'considers' and 'is'. Andrew was quite clear that it was his opinion (as in considers) rather than factual (as in is).



As it stands, I don't even understand what you're trying to get at Stump. Are you saying that Andrew misspoke his opinion? Or are you saying something else? It's HIS opinion, so I'm assuming you mean something else, but I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

un·fit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ft)

adj.



1. Not meant or adapted for a given purpose; inappropriate: a solvent that is unfit for use on wood surfaces.



2. Below the required standard; unqualified: an unfit parent.



3. Not in good physical or mental health.



4. Biology. Unable to survive or produce viable offspring in a particular environment.

So, unfit really doesn't mean either. They obviously *can* run the nation. *Should* they run the nation? Well, if you think someone that is not up to the task *should* run a nation, then so be it. I describe them with exactness: "not up to the task" if you prefer.



I haven't decided for whom I will cast my vote (trying to be careful with language around you...), but I can say that Martin looks worn out. The PC party looks better than they have in a while, but they don't seem to defend themselves that well; it seems that they have to muzzle half their Albertan MPs in order not to scare us urbanites. I don't know yet.



Reagan was a fine, honest man in his private life. His politics aren't as easy to decipher. He brough morals back into the zeitgeist. People began to trust government more (in the 70s, trust in government slid to Banana Republic levels). He brought the US back into military interventionism. He stood up to the Soviets. He traded arms for hostages (tough for one of any ideology to defend). He overspent. He was able to get a nuclear ICBM reduction with Gorbachev. He was quick to go after Libya and Grenada (for better or for worse). He presided over a long economic boom (the DJIA tripled during his tenure). He was a great speechmaker (or speech-reader). He seemed to be a beacon of optimism at all times. In private, his biographer decried his ignorance in some walks of life but also admired much about him (particular his behaviour in the spotlight). I think these are a lot of things that will take some time for history to sort out.



-Andrew

Ah, you forgot to mention one of Reagan's largest legacies...the one that makes Nicaraguans shudder at night.


A direct line can be drawn from the abuses and torture of Abu Ghraib et al back to Reagan's Central American policy. Many of the same people are still involved.

Ah, you forgot to mention one of Reagan's largest legacies...the one that makes Nicaraguans shudder at night.


A direct line can be drawn from the abuses and torture of Abu Ghraib et al back to Reagan's Central American policy. Many of the same people are still involved.

Dugly:


I'm saying that Andrew said the NDP was 'unfit' to lead the country. And that that statement is false because he couldn't provide reasons to back it up. He (Andrew) is content to let his statement stand as opinion and I can abide by that. Which is to say I guess no matter how much I beat this dead horse it still ain't getting up.


To the matter at hand (who to vote for), I think a lot of people probably find themselves in some version of my own predicament re: casting my ballot.


Namely, I'd like to see somebody else run the country. I don't want it to be the Conservatives, and it's hard to imagine the NDP pulling it off. If I vote with my conscience (Green Party) then I may well be enabling a Tory to take a seat by taking a vote away from the NDP or Liberal candidate.



Further, I think a leader like Paul Martin has the skills on the world stage that Canada needs at this seemingly pivotal era in history and Harper is too hawk-like while Layton despite his abilities simply lacks the hours at the helm to be trusted as the pilot of the ship of state at this time.


So it comes down to settling on the Liberals yet again and hoping for a minority gov't with the NDP holding the balance of power.


All of those factors make it tough to vote according to your beliefs, or for the person who might actually be the best candidate in your riding as larger factors are at play.


It certainly points (to me in my ever so humble opinion) towards the need for electoral reform that incorporates some type of proportional representation.


Personally, it all comes down standing in the voting booth on the big day and figuring out whether I feel idealistic or pragmatic at that moment.


regards,

CK



CK


In the US, people are always taking swipes at Nader for "taking votes away" from Democrats. Sounds like your (well-founded) fear of Harper getting in makes you think that voting Green means taking a vote from the Liberals.


In the US, there are only two parties, and only a representative from one of them will ever get in. That isn't the case here (as you know)... and I think seeing the election as Harper vs. Martin is flawed. Getting the first Green seats is a significant milestone. More importantly, I believe, legitimizing MORE parties is getting closer to the kind of democracy we want in Canada - the Greens were left out of the debates because they have no seats at present. Next time around, we'll get to hear another platform on TV (assuming the Greens get a seat or two).


I have the same reservations as you do - but I've decided that rather than trying to save Canada from Harper, I'd rather look long-term at diversifying the pool of parties and candidates to vote for...




Of the leaders I expect Martin can simply do the best job, corruption aside. On the International scale it's useful to have a recognized figure who has been around the block.


I find the conservative plan for Canada disturbing. I think the last thing we need to do is cut taxes. MY priorities are (in order)


1) Paying down the debt


2) Retaining Healthcare as public only and improving accessability


3) Improving K-12 Education (I don't think post sec. Education needs as much money as other people think... my opinion)


4) Research (kind of like a boost to post secondary education, but more active) in Alternative fuels (primarily vehicular) and technology.



For my values I believe the Liberal "agenda" is most appropriate.


If I don't vote for liberals I'm going to vote green. I would like to see a liberal as my MP, but if they have a large margin then Green gets my vote so that they can have official party status (and funding) which now they get if they have 2% of the popular vote (note: they don't need any seats)

Greens only need seats to be included in televised debate - or that's what the "consortium" is telling us.

You can sign an online petition to have the Green Party included in the debates. Click on www below for the link.

To preface:



"

I'm saying that Andrew said the NDP was 'unfit' to lead the country. And that that statement is false because he couldn't provide reasons to back it up. He (Andrew) is content to let his statement stand as opinion and I can abide by that. Which is to say I guess no matter how much I beat this dead horse it still ain't getting up.

"



This is silly. Of course saying someone who is "unfit to govern" is an opinion. But, the statement is not false even if I haven't proven it to be true. Does e=mc2 not hold if I can't prove it? Surely the job can fall on someone else... Anyhow, this is not boolean algebra, it is debate. The horse is long dead and you are impaling it with ill-reasoning. Please, leave the horse be.



-Andrew

"Does e=mc2 not hold if I can't prove it?"


That's why it's called the *Theory* of Relativity