Originally Posted by
Cruise
Nope, not going personal. It was a legit question. Words mean things...if it had been a personal attack, I would've said "you're being obtuse"....but that's not what I said, was it? Thanks for trying to stir up controversy where there was none.
Flaw in my logic??? Ok, whatever you say. You're entitled to your opinion, regardless if we agree...as am I.
No, I'm not in a position to judge whether the NC has the proper members. Are you? Let's not forget, I'm not the one complaining about the NC representation and the conspiracies within.
Neither one of us are in a position to judge whether or not the NC has the proper members unless you happen to be on the MEC.
But, can we stick to the topic? We're discussing how an MEC does business, IIRC, you are of the opinion that roll call is not the best way and that the majority coalition shouldn't get it's way just because it's larger.
I used the recent NC selection as an example of the larger coalition getting its way just because it is bigger and now you want to change sides. How about a little consistency?
If you feel that the outnumbered MEC members should get their way, how can you defend the fact that the 109 Reps (outnumbered 4 to 2) did not get their way in the recent NC member selection?
And, BTW the duly elected reps have the right to make a determination of ability for Committee members. If the 109 Reps wanted someone who are we to discount their choice?
I doubt that it matters to you, but I'm not arguing who should be on the NC. I'm arguing how the MEC does business. I don't hold the NC responsible for anything, I hold the MEC responsible for everything. Because they are.