| Subject: Re: Moors (intentionally) misleads |
Author:
Greg Moors
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:54:06 03/11/03 Tue
Author Host/IP: rcdso.org/209.226.11.194
In reply to:
Michael Watkins
's message, "Moors (intentionally) misleads" on 11:42:08 03/11/03 Tue
I am not a huge fan of quoting other’s posts in a response but it seems the most efficient way to deal with this particular letter.
>And calling Mr. Prentice's policy proposal on education "socialist" is laughable. >Investing in our children is something all levels of government already do and we >as a society have a moral obligation to provide for. Extending the availability of >post secondary education to more students is key to improving quality of life for >all and enhances national competitiveness for the long term good of our country.
I am amused that the people who love to attack Mr. Orchard by calling him a socialist are selective in their abhorrence of social policy. Apparently, neo-conservatives feel social programming is a good thing as long as it means they won’t have to pay the true cost of their kids post secondary education. Interesting that a group so keen on getting into bed with the US doesn’t want to face the facts on what a post secondary education costs. “We want to be just like them and pay less taxes, but we still want universal health care and government underwritten education.” Sorry folks it just doesn’t work. Do the math.
Frankly, I’m surprised the US universities haven’t launched their Chapter 11 law suit against the Canadian government for providing subsidies. I’m sure it’s just a mater of time.
>It would appear that Orchard education policy can be summed up as "we are not >in favour of extending post-secondary educational opportunity to more students".
No, it states that if the government is going to underwrite post secondary education, it should be doing so in areas that make the country stronger. There’s an old adage that nothing happens until something gets built. Why should the Canadian taxpayers fund the education of computer programmers, accountants and lawyers if there is no industry to employ them when they graduate? Government support should be in apprenticeship programs for made in Canada industries.
>Clearly the only socialist policy statements we've heard from candidates is from >Mr. Orchard, who would somehow nationalize ship, car and tractor production. >Can you not picture the Lada and Yugo-like vehicles rolling off the lines? >Perhaps he'd like to confer with former BC Premier Glen Clark on this. Looney >tunes at best. Fortress Canada at worst.
Mr. Watkins seems to underestimate the Canadian workforce in that he doesn’t feel we can put out world class products. Now that’s the kind of pride that builds a country!
This has nothing to do with a Fortress Canada. It has everything to do with having goods to take to the global economy other than natural resources. And David Orchard is not about nationalizing industry. He is however about making sure that any taxpayers dollars that support industry supports Canadian companies. If there are Canadian companies that want to build Canadian cars than why should the government be sending millions of taxpayers dollars in auto industry subsidies to companies from other countries?
>Perhaps Mr. Orchard would prefer we not invest in our children so that a large >force of ship, car and tractor factory assembly line workers can be groomed? Are >worker dormitories not close behind in his vision?
What a telling statement this is. And to think there are those who accuse this party of being elitist. Do all of Mr. Prentice’s supporters have an equal respect for blue collar workers as Mr. Watkins?
On the contrary, Mr. Orchard feels the best investment in the future would be to encourage more of our children to pursue an honorable aspiration of becoming skilled workers in the building of ships, cars, and tractors. Then our economy is creating value and we have something to trade with the rest of the world and there is industry to employ all those university graduates that currently are unemployed.
>Thinking people understand that a well educated Canada makes for a highly >competitive Canada -- one able to fully participate in the global economy.
Bringing exactly what to the trading table? Or did the thinking people not think it that far through?
>And competitiveness is one important plank in the foundation of a strong and >sovereign Canada.
Alas, Mr. Watkins makes a statement I can agree with!
>Mr. Moors should not belittle or call into question the motives of someone who >shoulders the heavy burden of running as a Progressive Conservative candidate >for Member of Parliament.
I can say without question that no one outside the Orchard camp has the slightest idea of the burden of running a campaign in the face of exclusion, ridicule, insult, slander and dishonorable behavior on the part of other party members. If Mr. Prentice is not up to being challenged on his positions then he should get out of politics right now. When he has had to put up with a fraction of what Mr. Orchard has endured I will take such statements from Mr. Watkins with less contempt than I take this one today.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 