thompsm@utecfa.UUCP (Mark Thompson) (08/03/84)
>What a vulgar characterization of ethnic and French Canadian voters! >As to the test to see whether we are "smart" or "aware" enough to vote, >I think Mr Thompson has missed the point of the Universal Franchise! >It is not too long ago that Women were considered not aware enough, >or not capable of making an intelligent choice, and thus were denied the >vote. How about people who haven't gone to university, or high school >for that matter? Shall we exclude them from our *club* of voters? I apoligize for my characterization but my exposure to the opinions of these people cannot help me conclude anything different their voting prowess. I must admit that this exposure has been limited to ethnics but the voting habits of those in Quebec do not inspire kinder words about their insight. (Remember that the Rhinoceros party finished second in several ridings there. Apparently too many of them think the future of our country is a joke.) What is this exposure I have had? A summer job in 1979 placed me in several households a day and many people mentioned the election. Who are you voting for they asked? Company policy prohibited me from discussing the matter but too many of them went on to say that they were voting for Trudeau because he was a nice man. Nice man? Why? Because he piroettes (sp?) behind the Queen and gives the Canadian public the finger? Hey I didn't say anything about excluding people who didn't go to school. All I ask for is a little reality regarding the world. This reality is apparently lacking in too many voters. >As to the deficit, from which his venom pours, I suppose that he fully >supports the $20 Billion cost of the Conservative election promises. Typical distortion of the facts as Liberals or their type are prone to do. As we all know that figure has underhandedly read off a private document. It is not necessarily PC policy as Mr. Mulroney has stated. Besides I don't know about you but even if it were true it sure beats the $160 billion dollar bill rung up by the Liberals over the last decade. By the way Mr. Hume you failed to suggest how to pay off the debt particularly since it is increasing at ~$30 billion a year ($20 billion courtesy of interest on previously accumulated debt) >As for US defense spending. I read the other day that the cost of *one* >MX missile would equal the cost of raising *every* US single mother family >above the poverty line. I could go on, and on about the so called US defense >spending. Again I see that Mr. Hume cannot understand plain English. I see no statement necessarily supporting increased US defense spending. I merely implied that it was a major cause of their deficit. It would be fantastic if all that money helped the needy but the Soviets don't particularly inspire good will. However this is another matter altogether. Please note that all the money funneled out of the government purse for Liberal patronage appointments could also do wonders for the underpriveleged. >As for the reason the Liberals were elected last time, perhaps Mr Thompson >would consider the statement of The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, "We are going to >govern as if we had a majority". Talk about arrogance! That's really >treating parliament with the dignity and respect it deserves. Who's arrogant? I thought Pierre defined the word. At least Mr. Clark had the guts to stand up for his parties principles instead of coddling with the NDP as Trudeau did in 1972. Respect and dignity for parliament? Who are you kidding? It is well known that Mr. Trudeau often circumvented the peoples representatives by using a process known as Order in Council. How do you think metricfication was ordered. Again don't get me wrong I have nothing against metrification, just about the way it was rammed down Canadians throats. >And finally, user fees. I think Mr Thompson does not grasp the difference >between extra billing and user fees. User fees are charged by the hospitals, >extra billing is done by the doctors. I suppose he thinks that all those >hypochondriacs (sp?) are admitting themselves into hospital. And I can't believe >that a large percentage of those being charged user fees or being extra billed >are hypochondriacs. Sure I know the difference. I said nothing about extra billing. All I know is that health costs are too high. Don't blame the doctors either. A small number may have it on easy street but the majority work damn hard for what they earn. There job is not an enviable one where they must deal with life and death, day in and day out. I am sure extra billing would be much less prevalent if doctors incomes had kept pace with inflation. >Maybe I'm expecting too much. I thought that users of this news group would >present opinions and observations and back them up with reasoned arguments, >not with rhetoric from one party leader or another. Oh, well. Well Mr. Hume I don't expect too much. I knew I there would be those who would spew out the same old Liberal lies and distortions that we have heard even since Mr. Trudeau muddied the then cleaner waters of federal politics which prevailed before he became Prime Minister. I can't force you to vote Progressive Conservative (Progressive because this country might finally have a chance to progress under their leadership). By the slant of your opinions I certainly don't expect you too. I hope however that other undecided readers may realize that this is where hope for Canada's future lies. I don't see too many black marks against the PC's but when I look at the Liberal record I feel like I'm in the Black Hole of Calcutta. Let the PC's have a real go at it. They can hardly do worse than has already transpired despite the fact that if they do win the election they will inherit a terrible mess. We can count on Mr. Mulroney to make the tough decisions needed to get our economy going again. Schefferville you say? It had to be done and it was handled quite nicely as suggested by many including Liberals when Mr. Mulroney was president of Iron Ore Co. What would a Liberal government have done if it was their decision? Probably would have kept it running at a loss of millions. Need we say more.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/03/84)
In respect of Mr. Thomson's contention that if you think, you have
to vote PC, it is surprising that the higher one's educational
attainment, the more likely one is to vote NDP. The less educated
one is, the more likely one is to vote PC. Interesting, in view
of Mr. Thomson's displayed prowess with the subtleties of English!
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmnh@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mark N. Hume) (08/07/84)
Bare with me for one more reply. Note that items preceded by > are his and itmes preceded by >> are mine. ************************************************************************ >The U.S. happens to pay the lions >share of western defence. What's the Liberal's excuse? It certainly isn't >defence spending. > >>As for US defense spending. I read the other day that the cost of *one* >>MX missile would equal the cost of raising *every* US single mother family >>above the poverty line. I could go on, and on about the so called US defense >>spending. > >Again I see that Mr. Hume cannot understand plain English. I see no statement >necessarily supporting increased US defense spending. I merely implied that it >was a major cause of their deficit. It would be fantastic if all that money >helped the needy but the Soviets don't particularly inspire good will. However >this is another matter altogether. Please note that all the money funneled >out of the government purse for Liberal patronage appointments could also do >wonders for the underpriveleged. The term western defence carries with it a certain connotation which perhaps Mark did not want to convey. That connotation is that the western defence that the US is paying for is justified in some way, that is, the west needs to go to that extent to defend itself. As for the fact that the US feels it must provide this defence, I would much rather we looked after ourselves, since the US has not shown the kind of attitude that would lead to longlasting peace. >One other thing that irks me. The medicare program. It is not bad but what >is wrong with user fees to discourage hypochondriac behavior? > >>And finally, user fees. I think Mr Thompson does not grasp the difference >>between extra billing and user fees. User fees are charged by the hospitals, >>extra billing is done by the doctors. I suppose he thinks that all those >>hypochondriacs (sp?) are admitting themselves into hospital. And I can't believe >>that a large percentage of those being charged user fees or being extra billed >>are hypochondriacs. > >Sure I know the difference. I said nothing about extra billing. All I know is >that health costs are too high. Don't blame the doctors either. A small number >may have it on easy street but the majority work damn hard for what they earn. >There job is not an enviable one where they must deal with life and death, >day in and day out. I am sure extra billing would be much less prevalent if >doctors incomes had kept pace with inflation. Again Mark does not show he knows the difference between user fees and extra billing. Please tell me how someone admitts themself into a hospital. Doctors are not stupid, they can tell who is sick and who is not. Having user fees to prevent hypochondriacs from entering hospitals is much too strong a measure for such a small problem. Also I note that the problem of doctors' incomes not keeping pace is a problem caused not by the Federal government but by the provincial governments. >>As to the deficit, from which his venom pours, I suppose that he fully >>supports the $20 Billion cost of the Conservative election promises. > >Typical distortion of the facts as Liberals or their type are prone to do. >As we all know that figure has underhandedly read off a private document. >It is not necessarily PC policy as Mr. Mulroney has stated. Besides I don't >know about you but even if it were true it sure beats the $160 billion >dollar bill rung up by the Liberals over the last decade. By the way Mr. Hume >you failed to suggest how to pay off the debt particularly since it is >increasing at ~$30 billion a year ($20 billion courtesy of interest on >previously accumulated debt) The figure of $20 Billion was not conjured up by the Liberals but was read off a Conservative document carried by John Crosbie by an Ottawa newspaper reporter. I still haven't heard a good estimate of the cost of the Conservatives promises, so until then, I'll have to believe the PC document or Mr. Crosbie. >>As for the reason the Liberals were elected last time, perhaps Mr Thompson >>would consider the statement of The Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, "We are going to >>govern as if we had a majority". Talk about arrogance! That's really >>treating parliament with the dignity and respect it deserves. > >Who's arrogant? I thought Pierre defined the word. At least Mr. Clark >had the guts to stand up for his parties principles instead of coddling with >the NDP as Trudeau did in 1972. When the government is in a minority position it is supposed to get the support of enough opposition members to sustain the government. How is one supposed to do this without accepting some of the policies of these opposition members. Unfortunately this is a lesson that Joe Clark learned the hard way. >Respect and dignity for parliament? >Who are you kidding? It is well known that Mr. Trudeau often circumvented >the peoples representatives by using a process known as Order in Council. >How do you think metricfication was ordered. Again don't get me wrong I have >nothing against metrification, just about the way it was rammed down Canadians >throats. I am not defending Orders in Council, but without them our system would grind to a halt. Parliament is unfortunately far too slow. If we look at the British Parliament we see that bills (even controversial ones) are passed through second and third readings often in a day each. In Canada, we have weeks (sometimes months) of debate on these stages for controversial bills. Thus it would be impossible for the government to get Parliament's approval for all of the meassures it takes. I certainly don't defend the method of implementing the metric system. >>Maybe I'm expecting too much. I thought that users of this news group would >>present opinions and observations and back them up with reasoned arguments, >>not with rhetoric from one party leader or another. Oh, well. > >Well Mr. Hume I don't expect too much. I knew I there would be those who >would spew out the same old Liberal lies and distortions that we have heard >even since Mr. Trudeau muddied the then cleaner waters of federal politics >which prevailed before he became Prime Minister. Well, I certainly didn't say I was going to vote Liberal, and I didn't tell anyone else to either. I merly presented a few observations which I think contradict some of those that Mark presented.