Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Green Party leader excluded from Televised debate?!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   




posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Well it appears that both Harper and Layton are backing down on their stance against Mrs. May.


www.cbc.ca...


Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton indicated on Wednesday they no longer oppose Green Leader Elizabeth May's participation in the two federal leaders debates, following a massive public backlash over their positions.


Rightfully so. Regardless of your personal opinions about her, she does lead a fully recoginized and Federally funded National Party. She has as much right to be there as Duceppe, maybe more.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Rightfully so. Regardless of your personal opinions about her, she does lead a fully recoginized and Federally funded National Party. She has as much right to be there as Duceppe, maybe more.




Hardly. She leads a party that has NEVER elected anyone under its' banner. She has a right to her opinion -----> In the park on a soapbox!

What you are arguing is the right for ANY party to debate the issues in a publicly funded forum. Which is absurd. They MUST have earned the right to be heard by being officially placed in the seat of official business. The House of Commons. Otherwise you might just as well start rounding up the communists, the remnants of the Rhinos, Charlie Tucker at the Church of the Universe in Freelton - look him up....quite a throwback.. and on.

I respect Ms. May, her party and her principles. She just hasn't earned the right to any official attention other than what she is getting. Harper and Layton are not bending or stupid, they are setting both Dion and May up for a major blindside. Count on it! If you buy what the media is saying, you truly are Canadian. A sheep.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynic


What you are arguing is the right for ANY party to debate the issues in a publicly funded forum.


Nope thats not what I am arguing. I don't believe that just anybody should be included. Although she hasn't elected anybody to Parliament, she does have nationwide support. She topped the magic number of 2% support nationally to receive Federal funding. The Greens are the only other party outside of the Big Three that can and does run candidates in all 308 ridings. Her choice not to run one in Dions home riding is stupid but that's politics isn't it.


Which is absurd.


Agreed.


They MUST have earned the right to be heard by being officially placed in the seat of official business. The House of Commons.


And technically she has. I don't agree with floor crossing( I think if they leave their party or are kicked out of caucus, they should remain an IND. until the next election) but Wilson's move to the Greens gave her a MP, whether he started out Green or not.


Otherwise you might just as well start rounding up the communists, the remnants of the Rhinos, Charlie Tucker at the Church of the Universe in Freelton - look him up....quite a throwback.. and on.


See the first part of my reply.


Harper and Layton are not bending or stupid, they are setting both Dion and May up for a major blindside.


I fully agree with that. Although she's is a really good speaker and may surprise some in the Debate, if the Media actually allows her in.


If you buy what the media is saying, you truly are Canadian. A sheep.


BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


For the Record, I am not a Green party supporter. I like some of what they say but not anywhere close enough to actually cast a ballot for them. I actually agree with a bit of what they all say. I don't support any of them though. I just like politics.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

If you buy what the media is saying, you truly are Canadian. A sheep.


BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.


For the Record, I am not a Green party supporter. I like some of what they say but not anywhere close enough to actually cast a ballot for them. I actually agree with a bit of what they all say. I don't support any of them though. I just like politics.




I too like politics and I'm sure you can tell I support the Tories. If you checked your records, Wilson was removed from the party over inconsistencies in spending (booted from caucus) and only after being refused admission (after begging I might add) did he trot over to Aunt Lizzie and plead for asylum. (with no real skill sets his job prospects were weak I guess - Timmies perhaps, but I digress)

Their platform is weak, they have no economic forecasting to work with, they can't balance the checkbooks and would like to turn us into a colony of the British Empire circa 1850 I will never buy a horse let alone ride it to work and our city only permits chickens on town property so goats are out. How do I cut the grass? Until alternate energy has been proven to work, we are stuck with what we have. That won't be Liz and her hippy freinds.

Sorry, but she and her party have NOT earned a place at the debate tables. I would go hear what she has to say if I'm in the park however. I enjoy comedy as well as politics.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicSorry, but she and her party have NOT earned a place at the debate tables. I would go hear what she has to say if I'm in the park however. I enjoy comedy as well as politics.


Well, you don't even have to do that, since everybody has backed down under the anger of the electorate. Layton first, then finally Harper. You can watch it on the tube.

Sorry bud...chalk one up for democracy.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Not democracy.

The sheep have spoken, the situation is baaaaad.

Besides, Layton and Harper are setting her and Dion up for a major fall.

Stay tuned to Youtube dude.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynic
Not democracy.

The sheep have spoken, the situation is baaaaad.


Democracy has more than one definition.




de·moc·ra·cy

Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


pure democracy

Function: noun
Date: 1656
: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives

social democracy
Function: noun
Date: 1850
1 : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
2 : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices
— social democrat noun
— social democratic adjective

Tory Democracy
Function: noun
Date: 1867
: a political philosophy advocating preservation of established institutions and traditional principles combined with political democracy and a social and economic program designed to benefit the common man

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3: capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

www.merriam-webster.com...


In the case for Ms. May and her Green Party, I would say that Pure Democracy has spoken loudly enough to make a difference.

When politicos pay attention to polls in relation to their platforms/legislation/etc., then that is also Pure Democracy at play.

There is, however, a danger involved in responding to popular opinion. The public is a fickle creature and the majority can change their mind on an issue very quickly. Passing bills based on polls can thus backfire by installing laws (etc.) which will be difficult to rescind if they become wildly unpopular (gun registry).

In the case of Ms. May, her inclusion in the debates may very well have an effect by pulling votes away from the three major players.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I very much doubt that Ms. May being included in the debate will have much bearing on the way people of our great country end up voting. Once she gets on her rant, most normal people will understand that there really is a lack of substance beyond the environment in her message and vote for one of the other three, Layton or Harper most likely, Dion is going down. (Duceppe is out since he is a separatist weasel and should not be there either!)

Please do not misunderstand why I so passionately opposed to her being there. She is not a member of Parliament, duly elected by a majority of her constituents. Neither is her party. She does not belong there, period.

Does she have a right to preach her message, yes. Does she have the right to do it on my dime, no. Her party receives money as allowed under the Elections Act. If she wants a TV spot, she must buy her own.






top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join