Helpful Jack (or should that be Jacques?)

All I see is people saying “person X is a Y so I’m just going to ignore all his points, or he is biased, or he is full of shit because of this label I put on him.”

And you’re all doing it.

If you can’t really challenge a policy or a point on its merits, then go ahead and just call people names. That works much better.

Oh you’re a socialist, therefore everything you say is bullshit. Oh you’re the Don Cherry of Politics (really?)

So take the challenge, BigThumb, instead of just labelling Rex Murphy and then dismissing him, how about you point out how exactly he was wrong? Otherwise, you’re just practising the same game the neo-cons play, aren’t you? Label someone so you can dismiss them, then you don’t need to treat their argument with any validity.

There are sovereigntists who are socialists, there are sovereigntists who are centrists, and then I read a CBC article that some sovereigntists in Quebec are proposing to form a provincial conservative alternative. So a sovereigntist is a sovereigntist is a sovereigntist regardless what political position he’s/she’s in.

So I don’t see how only the neo-cons can threaten Canadian unity, when Layton openly said he would allow QC to break away with a majority of one.

So here’s some more reading material, sorry I’m not sure one way or another if Mr. Authier of the Montreal Gazette is a neo-con or not (I’ll hazard a guess and say not).

However I did find his opinion of how the NDP is portraying itself in Quebec as opposed to its portrayal in the rest of Canada a tad illuminating.

“The dual face of the NDP – staunchly federalist in the rest of Canada and resolutely nationalist here – was clearly on display at the rally, officially a meeting of the NDP Quebec general council, the first since the May 2 election that saw 59 NDP candidates elected.”

It may work for him in Quebec, but somehow I’m not so sure it’s going to work so well in the other nine provinces and three territories, sounds kind of like a “lets have our cake and eat it too” kind of strategy don’t you think. Dual faced after all is another way of saying two faced.

Another quote from the article I found helpful was:

"But the party has its work cut out as some of its more obscure policies will come under greater scrutiny now that the NDP is the official opposition.

Which is what I’ve been trying to get across the last little while here.

montrealgazette.com/life/bea … story.html

[quote=“MiG”]All I see is people saying “person X is a Y so I’m just going to ignore all his points, or he is biased, or he is full of shit because of this label I put on him.”

And you’re all doing it.

If you can’t really challenge a policy or a point on its merits, then go ahead and just call people names. That works much better.

Oh you’re a socialist, therefore everything you say is bullshit. Oh you’re the Don Cherry of Politics (really?)

So take the challenge, BigThumb, instead of just labelling Rex Murphy and then dismissing him, how about you point out how exactly he was wrong? Otherwise, you’re just practising the same game the neo-cons play, aren’t you? Label someone so you can dismiss them, then you don’t need to treat their argument with any validity.[/quote]

You’re totally right MiG! Guilty as charged of playing the same game. The neo-cons seems to be winning over the country with it so why not try the same strategy :wink: They make an affirmation about Layton and then it is seen as the truth, no matter how reasoned the rebuttal is.

The Bloc is on life support, the NDP gave them a huge blow, and the neo-cons are still not happy because there isn’t too many Conservatives in Quebec so they start labelling the NDP as two faced while this policy (50 +1) has been in effect for a few years. I don’t like the policy myself but I would rather see as strong NDP in Quebec than seeing the Bloc. As far as canadian unity, the NDP is miles ahead of the Bloc.

Also, I don’t consider Rex Murphy a part of the neo-cons. My “Don Cherry of canadian politics” refers to the colourful, curmudgeon-like looks and attitude that Rex rex usually has.

Putting political labels on the Bloc is almost impossible. Duceppe appears to be left leaning, but the founder, Lucien Bouchard, was Mulroney’s Quebec lieutenant and the Bloc was originally formed by five Tories and two Liberals.

As for the 50% + 1, I don’t know how else we can deal with that. You would think that a vote of this nature should have a higher threshold, but it really isn’t up to the rest of Canada to decide how Quebec will determine its future. (I still don’t think sovereignty is a go at this point anyway.)

I remember when we voted to go back to work after the teachers’ strike. Before the vote a group of us were discussing the worst possible outcome which would have been to stay on strike with the slimmest of majority. That would have been horribly divisive for the union. That is the worst possible outcome for Quebec as well. People will accept the status quo (going back to work, staying within Canada) by the barest majority but the opposite is not the case.

If the bar is too high - say 60% - and 59% support separation, then the problem doesn’t go away, might even get worse. If the bar is low at 50% then a bare win is a real risk for Quebec. People will be threatening to move and regions might call for their own vote to rejoin Canada. It would be chaos enough with a 60% majority; it would be unmanagebale at 50% + 1.

If the separatists were honest, they would set the bar higher or at least expect a majority in all regions before pulling the plug.

Well now that Big Thumb has gone to confession and sought absolution, lets continue on with the debate.

Here’s an interesting talking point for discussion, should any province hold more seats in Parliament than its current population can justify

cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … seats.html

An interesting concept but if you’re in a province where your numbers are growing but your representation is stagnant are you feeling as though you’re part of the process?

It’s no wonder that voting levels continue to drop, if you’re going to vote, you would probably like to think that your vote is equal to each Canadian where ever they live.

As for the neo cons as you so generously lump everyone who disagrees with the current theme of the NDP supporters, I don’t think everyone with a differing opinion is ready to put a stake in the heart of
confederation.

I’m just suggesting that you can’t have a special strategy for one collective at the expense of the greater collective, last time I checked we all carried the same passports.

[quote=“Smurfette”]
I’m just suggesting that you can’t have a special strategy for one collective at the expense of the greater collective[/quote]

I’d argue that this happens all the time in politics. Corporate and Top heavy income tax cuts could count as “a special strategy for one collective at the expense of the greater collective”. Much of the social safety net could go under this statement as well. I certainly view NAFTA this way.

To accuse parties you don’t agree with of this “special strategy” and then imply that the party you support is somehow above it is hypocritical.