JM_ Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, J.R. said: The highlighted I find quite amusing that people fixate on her so much. While I certainly have no love lost for her (or her party), she's just the puppet, the smiling face the party puts out for photo ops and to deflect and stick to talking points in debates, news conferences etc. If she's gone, there will just be another puppet in her place for everyone to hate on. Thinking the leader of the party is the source of the issues with said party is beyond naive and frankly, is EXACTLY what they want people to think. That way when the public grows tired of that puppet leader, they can place another puppet leader up there and sell the public on 'CHANGE!' and "NEW LEADERSHIP!' even though the core of and money behind, that party are still exactly the same.... well... its easy? The NDP is already trying to put pressure on Weaver, making supporting the current gov't in any way is some sort of crime its quite funny actually. Its his best means to accomplish his party's goals at the moment and he's supposed to just throw that away and hand the reigns to Horgan. OK then. It does the Greens no good whatsoever for Weaver to anoint Horgan as the premier. I just hope Weaver takes this opportunity, does some real good, and then have at it 18 months or so from now once that budget fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, J.R. said: The highlighted I find quite amusing that people fixate on her so much. While I certainly have no love lost for her (or her party), she's just the puppet, the smiling face the party puts out for photo ops and to deflect and stick to talking points in debates, news conferences etc. If she's gone, there will just be another puppet in her place for everyone to hate on. Thinking the leader of the party is the source of the issues with said party is beyond naive and frankly, is EXACTLY what they want people to think. That way when the public grows tired of that puppet leader, they can place another puppet leader up there and sell the public on 'CHANGE!' and "NEW LEADERSHIP!' even though the core of and money behind, that party are still exactly the same.... Curious as to how you feel Weaver is different than Horgan or Clark when one of his first demands was more money from taxpayer funds and full party status thus ensuring a change to the constitution as he does not hold 4 seats.. Have hope for the guy but It's a bit tiresome to see more of the same from someone people hope change will stem from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said: well... its easy? The NDP is already trying to put pressure on Weaver, making supporting the current gov't in any way is some sort of crime its quite funny actually. Its his best means to accomplish his party's goals at the moment and he's supposed to just throw that away and hand the reigns to Horgan. OK then. I just hope Weaver takes this opportunity, does some real good, and then have at it 18 months or so from now once that budget fails. Sure it's easy. That should be people's first clue. Stop looking at what the magicians are trying to distract you with and watch what they're actually doing for &^@#'s sake. Absolutely that's what Weaver should do. And Horgan certainly 'should' be painting him as some sort of turncoat for even considering working with the Liberals. He can't afford to simply let Weaver steal all his thunder Now if only people were smart enough to see through all of this nonsense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Quote People care about results and will enjoy seeing Clark have to bend to another party's ideas Quote The highlighted I find quite amusing that people fixate on her so much. While I certainly have no love lost for her (or her party), she's just the puppet, the smiling face the party puts out Thing is, this is acceptance of something unacceptable and people are tired of that. We shouldn't have to "settle" and joining forces with Clark, in any way shape or form, keeps the status quo. Time to shake it up. Trump is a big exclamation point as to how "settling" or allowing something to slide can grow out of control. So it's important to tackle inadequacies, not work with or beside them. Join forces. Shifting toward the NDP side forces a hand to some degree, if at least temporarily. Sends a message. The puppet show needs to end. If Weaver ties himself to Clark, it would be a detriment to him for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Curious as to how you feel Weaver is different than Horgan or Clark when one of his first demands was more money from taxpayer funds and full party status thus ensuring a change to the constitution as he does not hold 4 seats.. Have hope for the guy but It's a bit tiresome to see more of the same from someone people hope change will stem from There's a lot more to official party status than a raise. It's also not remotely their main thrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said: Thing is, this is acceptance of something unacceptable and people are tired of that. We shouldn't have to "settle" and joining forces with Clark, in any way shape or form, keeps the status quo. Time to shake it up. Trump is a big exclamation point as to how "settling" or allowing something to slide can grow out of control. So it's important to tackle inadequacies, not work with them. Shifting toward the NDP side forces a hand to some degree, if at least temporarily. Sends a message. The puppet show needs to end. for me its more about the results, vs. who's working with who. Also, isn't that kind of what government is supposed to be, parties from different points of view working toward something better? RE: status quo - that ship has already sailed. Clark's power as we knew it is done, there's no doubt about that in my mind, and right now Weaver can force some very positive changes. I think when the dust settles people will be OK with that in the short term. I really dislike the money side of BC politics and if Weaver can force that out, maybe as soon as the next month as part of the budget bill? that to me is a big win for BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Keep the personal stuff out of it please/thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: There's a lot more to official party status than a raise. It's also not remotely their main thrust. I'll take no part in your all too typical on politics, childish rhetoric if that's how you want to play things WH. Feel free to actually discuss things of merit though. the Greens demand for party status actually loses the Greens money. I bet Hip knows that. http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-greens-would-get-less-money-more-perks-with-official-party-status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, J.R. said: Now if only people were smart enough to see through all of this nonsense... Well, this is Weaver's chance to prove it. He's got a lot on the line over the next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: Thing is, this is acceptance of something unacceptable and people are tired of that. We shouldn't have to "settle" and joining forces with Clark, in any way shape or form, keeps the status quo. Time to shake it up. Trump is a big exclamation point as to how "settling" or allowing something to slide can grow out of control. So it's important to tackle inadequacies, not work with them. Shifting toward the NDP side forces a hand to some degree, if at least temporarily. Sends a message. The puppet show needs to end. If Weaver ties himself to Clark, it would be a detriment to him for sure. Getting rid of the Liberals would accomplish that. Getting rid of Clark doesn't. Thinking Clark specifically, remotely matters in the big picture, is beyond naive Deb. Weaver isn't 'tying himself to Clark'. He's working within political realities to ensure Green issues and mandates are addressed and enacted while bettering his party's status to hopefully build even further on that in the future. As a Green supporter, I completely endorse it. This is politics, not a friendly tea party. It's a dirty, underhanded business of gamesmanship, back scratching, handshakes and back stabbing. You have to get dirty to get things done unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, J.R. said: There's a lot more to official party status than a raise. It's also not remotely their main thrust. I'll take no part in your all too typical on politics, childish rhetoric if that's how you want to play things WH. Feel free to actually discuss things of merit though. It's a valid question actually JR. You don't get to sluff it off as though it has no basis merit or meaning in the conversation. You want change, you claim Weaver can be that change yet one of his first actions was a request for special treatment and more money. I am very very aware of what it all means; I am also very aware both the NDP and Libs are ready to bend over backwards and give them party status thus opening the way for potentially more fringe parties or a smattering of independents seeking official status in the legislature, thus making the future of politics in BC potentially more entertaining and fruitful to the voter. Be the change you want to see right? Now, before you claim I am being childish or that this is rhetoric. Back up and understand, if he campaigned on change but is already committing to some of the same excesses we see in politics all the time. Demanding special status, money from the electorate for non party status and a general change to the constitution in BC to grant him said benefits. How is he different. Answer that, don't claim it has no merit or basis in this conversation. In no way was my question childish, nor was it rhetoric. Just because you don't like the question does not mean it does not deserve an answer. I'd also appreciate a real answer, not a dredged up old quote of yours that has 10% of an answer I'd appreciate something genuine. If Weaver is actually going to be different, then how is this different than what we've seen in the past from the same old same old? (Also, keep the jabs to yourself; they're not desired or warranted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: It's a valid question actually JR. You don't get to sluff it off as though it has no basis merit or meaning in the conversation. You want change, you claim Weaver can be that change yet one of his first actions was a request for special treatment and more money. I am very very aware of what it all means; I am also very aware both the NDP and Libs are ready to bend over backwards and give them party status thus opening the way for potentially more fringe parties or a smattering of independents seeking official status in the legislature, thus making the future of politics in BC potentially more entertaining and fruitful to the voter. Be the change you want to see right? Now, before you claim I am being childish or that this is rhetoric. Back up and understand, if he campaigned on change but is already committing to some of the same excesses we see in politics all the time. Demanding special status, money from the electorate for non party status and a general change to the constitution in BC to grant him said benefits. How is he different. Answer that, don't claim it has no merit or basis in this conversation. In no way was my question childish, nor was it rhetoric. Just because you don't like the question does not mean it does not deserve an answer. I'd also appreciate a real answer, not a dredged up old quote of yours that has 10% of an answer I'd appreciate something genuine. If Weaver is actually going to be different, then how is this different than what we've seen in the past from the same old same old? (Also, keep the jabs to yourself; they're not desired or warranted) 7 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: the Greens demand for party status actually loses the Greens money. I bet Hip knows that. http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-greens-would-get-less-money-more-perks-with-official-party-status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: He gets an immediate increase of $26k a year personally, an increase of almost $67,00 in expenses as well as more staff and additional access to tax exemption on party donations plus official party status enabling him to increase his allowable donation amount. But thanks for giving me the courtesy of actually responding to me. Really telling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: He gets an immediate increase of $26k a year personally, an increase of almost $67,00 in expenses as well as more staff and additional access to tax exemption on party donations plus official party status enabling him to increase his allowable donation amount. But thanks for giving me the courtesy of actually responding to me. Really telling Quote Preliminary financial figures provided to Postmedia News by the B.C. legislature show that the Greens would receive a caucus budget of $262,500 if they were successful in their demands to be designated an official party in the legislature. But if the three Green MLAs sat as independents, they would get a combined $525,000 annually. Makes those raises look like the peanuts they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 Lemme ask you point blank then JR What of Weaver turns out to be no better than Horgan or Clark or any other party leader. What then. What if he doesn't have the fortitude of Elizabeth May and turns out to be no different than the rest. Honest question. We've seen great individuals turn in to less desirable ones after taking a seat in the legislature, he wouldn't be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Makes those raises look like the peanuts they are. You don't get it, I understand that and it's ok. You're looking at independent vs party and that's cool. You're not understanding why it's important for him to get that status for the future and that's cool too. But you're still not answering any of my questions. And that in itself is telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Lemme ask you point blank then JR What of Weaver turns out to be no better than Horgan or Clark or any other party leader. What then. What if he doesn't have the fortitude of Elizabeth May and turns out to be no different than the rest. Honest question. We've seen great individuals turn in to less desirable ones after taking a seat in the legislature, he wouldn't be the first. 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: You don't get it, I understand that and it's ok. You're looking at independent vs party and that's cool. You're not understanding why it's important for him to get that status for the future and that's cool too. But you're still not answering any of my questions. And that in itself is telling. This is exactly what I mean by childish rhetoric that's all too common in politics and their discussion. Creative exclusion of all data to paint a predetermined and biased picture. A bunch of 'what if's' and straw men you want me to respond to. I'm not interested in playing games. I'm interested in actual discussion. I quite understand why it's important for them to get party status and the paltry raises that are more than cancelled out by the caucus funds they lose, have basically nothing to do with it. If you want to continue to focus in on that one, highly inconsequential bit of information, fill your straw man's boots without me. If you actually want to discuss politics, I welcome the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 24, 2017 Author Share Posted May 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Be the change you want to see right? Now, before you claim I am being childish or that this is rhetoric. Back up and understand, if he campaigned on change but is already committing to some of the same excesses we see in politics all the time. Demanding special status, money from the electorate for non party status and a general change to the constitution in BC to grant him said benefits. How is he different. You know that party status gives the Greens more power to ask questions and hold the government accountable on the public record... and you think he shouldn't demand that, why exactly? He was voted in to bring change and holding the gov't of the day to account is part of that, whether its the Liberals or the NDP. I get that you want him to just be quiet and give Horgan the keys, but how is that being true to his voting base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 43 minutes ago, J.R. said: This is exactly what I mean by childish rhetoric that's all too common in politics and their discussion. Creative exclusion of all data to paint a predetermined and biased picture. A bunch of 'what if's' and straw men you want me to respond to. I'm not interested in playing games. I'm interested in actual discussion. I quite understand why it's important for them to get party status and the paltry raises that are more than cancelled out by the caucus funds they lose, have basically nothing to do with it. If you want to continue to focus in on that one, highly inconsequential bit of information, fill your straw man's boots without me. If you actually want to discuss politics, I welcome the discussion. Whatever pal. I get it. You don't like the question so it's childish or it is rhetoric. I ask what if he is no better or worse than what we have now and you don't want to answer it. There is no strawman here, it's a pretty simple question to which you IMMEDIATELY quoted something that really had little to do with the question I asked. INstead opting to quote someone else because i asked you to not quote yourself. Which is simply lazy You're refusing to answer a pretty basic question. That says enough for me really. C'est la vie. I won't bother asking you another question here, I figure if you cannot find the modicum of respect needed to answer such a basic question there is not point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 27 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Whatever pal. I get it. You don't like the question so it's childish or it is rhetoric. I ask what if he is no better or worse than what we have now and you don't want to answer it. There is no strawman here, it's a pretty simple question to which you IMMEDIATELY quoted something that really had little to do with the question I asked. INstead opting to quote someone else because i asked you to not quote yourself. Which is simply lazy You're refusing to answer a pretty basic question. That says enough for me really. C'est la vie. I won't bother asking you another question here, I figure if you cannot find the modicum of respect needed to answer such a basic question there is not point It is childish rhetoric. Sorry. You're attempting to frame discussion by manipulating/omitting information and presenting questions regarding off tangent 'what if's'. That's the definition of straw man actually. I'll tell you what I do expect. I expect him to be a politician and press his party's agenda within that framework and present realities. Make of that what you will. I quoted someone else because their post already addressed your manipulative 'concern'. Pardon my efficiency. If you can't find a modicum of respect for actual, real discussion and not resort to childish rhetoric, manipulation and straw manning, I see no reason why I should grant you better responses than your posts have demanded. I'll not play games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.