1-We need less theocracy and she has been training, and hopes to continue, her advanced theological indoctrination.
2-Attendance at anti-Israel rally suggests she either is against Israel or can't anticipate that the rally had pro Hezbollah elements.
3-She thinks Canadians are stupid.
4-Last but more important - she doesn't inspire confidence. Policy wise the Greens are not meaningfully different than the Liberals and she will help Harper get a majority.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
1 - irrelevant since she believes in the separation of church and state, and canada is not threatened by theocratic rule in any event.
2 - jewish leaders also attended this rally, so by your definition the jewish leaders are pro-hezbollah. may marched with judy rebick, an activist and a jew.
3 - i guess we're just supposed to take your work on this one? sounds like a pretty stupid comment itself.
4 - by your logic we should not vote NDP either. also, no real policy differences...except for proportional representation, the presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, internet net-neutrality, policy on open-source software, ending the war on drugs, etc., etc. You obviously haven't even read the policy platforms in any detail.
4- in general you are entitled to your opinion about who is inspirational. Carbon tax is a huge difference between the NDP and the Greens. The Greens are for both and the NDP is for cap and trade and not carbon tax.
3- you don't have to take my word for it, her words speak for themselves: http://thescottross.blogspot.com/2008/09/elizabeth-may-audio-canadians-are.html
2- Jews have many different opinions, I'm concerned here with May's views, her views are what is important
1- I'm dislike the notion of someone with a strong theological bent, such as Ms. May, deciding public policy. I am not convinced that she will make sound decisions compartmentalizing the rational part of her brain and the irrational part which believes in supernatural deities and the guidance it provides to her. That she pursues her theological studies with zeal concerns me.
3 - She does not think Canadians are stupid. She agreed with the assessment that "environmental costs need to be internalized", not the assessment that "Canadians are stupid." if you listen to the context of the question that had just been put to her it's obvious. Stop playing dumb pretending you don't know what she meant.
2. Ok you have just done a 180 here - when it's hezbollah supporters in the crowd we're talking about, then she is guilty by association. but when I bring up the jewish leaders, then all of a sudden it's not important who is present in the crowd; now, it's "her own opinions" that matter. you are contradicting yourself. if you are really only concerned about her own opinions, then show me the text of her speech that is offensive.
if she associated with hezbollah supporters just because they were in the crown, then she is equally associated with the jewish leaders protesting for peace who were in the crown. anything else is a double standard which, given your bias, is not surprising.
4. the point of my comment here was that you said there was no real policy difference between the liberals and the greens. the policy issues i listed are platform differences between teh greens and the liberals, not greens and NDP. these are very significant differences which, if you had read the actual platforms, you would not have made a statement so divorced from reality.
1- another baseless statement. look at the greens policy platform and find me one that is egregiously informed by theology. the green platform is informed by environmentalism, not religion. And anyway, a prime minister does not "decide public policy" - canada isn't a dictatorship. laws are passed by the house of commons and senate.
In general you haven't brought up any fair criticisms - you have resorted to digging into obscure, partisan blogs to find dirt on her, then you act willfully blind and take it as objective.
Suffice it to say, we disagree.
With respect to 3 you write that "She agreed with the assessment that "environmental costs need to be internalized"" and that "it's obvious" that that is what she meant. Her explanation was that she actually said she disagreed with that assessment, and that the "dis" part wasn't picked up by her mic. Whichever it is it isn't obvious, and her explanation is fishy.
Post a Comment