Zephyr
Active Member
I've been using the word terrible when you actually used horrible.
By who's measure is his record horrible; yours or Ecology Ottawa? How are you defining horrible? Is the environment of Ottawa measurably worse off than before he was elected?
I'm saying that he hardly has a record on environmental issues. Then again, he hardly has a record of success on any of issues for which he was elected. An empty beer glass is not a horrible glass of beer; it is an empty glass of beer. There is nothing there to judge. That is my opinion.
Your opinion is formed on the basis of two non-elected interest groups who have a specific agenda in mind, and that's fine. That the mayor and council has not fulfilled what these specific groups demand means that the mayor and council has not met the demands of these groups.
I noted the pre-edit version.
Do you want to address the issues on the table rhetorically or substantively? If I answer one of your questions I would be saying that I didn't answer it before, when I in fact did.
I do not care if they are non-elected groups, there have always been such groups in modern day democracies - they are called lobbies. There are probably some of them out there representing what you believe in as well.
I have been a member of Sierra Club for fifteen years, and I see nothing to be ashamed about, in declaring that.
These groups are attempting to make policy issues on the environment available for review and broadcast to the public for their consideration. What in the world is wrong with that. They didn't tell O'Brien how to vote, nor anyone else. The fact that they do indicate their position on issues and attempt to influence voters to be aware of those issues is not evil, nor especially unusual. I don't think this lobby has ever been accused of bribing like Abramoff in the US or our Malroney friend here in Canada.
BTW 'terrible' and 'horrible' are emotive-reaction words, they shouldn't be overly analyzed as you are doing presently. I know that the points are clear enough, it is matter of a difference in degree on what to draw from the same material. As a matter of fact, within these organisations there is often a pull in different directions before a report is filed. I happen to know that just such a scenario occurred in this instance.
In the meantime let me make this clear: my opinion is forged from multiple factors not just one organisation, one vote, one anything, or even a few more of these. I am widely read on a number of these matters, without claiming to be an expert on any. I do not think it is unusual to see patterns and make judgements on the fly. If the environment were the only issue for me I wouldn't have voted for certain candidates in other elections in the past, but it is one of the more important set of issues that I weigh.