'Last drops of Orange Crush'

39 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater
'Last drops of Orange Crush'

Here's a critical column on Tom Mulcair that is basically the flip side to what Carol Goar wrote on Justin Trudeau.

---

Last drops of Orange Crush

FEBRUARY 21, 2015

BY ANTHONY FUREY

If the NDP wants to save its neck, someone in the backroom needs to sit Tom Mulcair down and give him a firm talking to.

The opposition leader seems either completely oblivious to the political pulse of the nation right now, or so stubborn that he thinks he can turn it around in his favour.

. . .

Justin Trudeau says his party will put forward recommendations to strengthen anti-terror bill C-51, but intend to vote for it regardless. This is the happy medium that Mulcair doesn’t yet understand.

. . .

The Liberals are now able to say to centre-right swing voters that they understand the importance of fighting terror, but they can also tell their base and the centre-left that they challenged Harper on the details worth sparring over.

But Mulcair has pushed himself into a corner. Instead of saying he’s fervently against the Islamic State but thinks C-51 needs work, last week he called the bill a "sweeping, dangerous, vague and ineffective" piece of legislation. He then accused the Liberals of being intimidated into supporting the bill.

"We in the NDP are going to fight it,” he affirmed. Words he’ll likely regret. So you’re telling Canadians you’re not just going to critique an anti-terror bill, but outright fight it?! And anyone who does support it isn’t doing so of their own free will? Good luck with that. It’s electoral poison.

---

Rest here:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/02/21/last-drops-of-orange-crush

nicky

I don't think you have yet told us Debater your personal views on your leaders's craven position on this issue.

I have spoken to a number of progressive friends who were prepared to hold their noses and vote for Justin who now see him as an unprincipled weakling and who now have enhanced regard for Tom Mulcair.

Your reticence on this point (as well as Pondering's) makes me wonder if you are among them?

Jacob Two-Two

Haha. What a clueless article that was. The life of a poll-chaser: trying to validate the experience of having no morals by criticising those who do. Idiots.

Stockholm

Boy Debater is really grasping at straws here. Now he has to quote an extreme right wing columnist who just lost his job playing "straight man" to Ezra Levant on Sun News

Pondering

nicky wrote:
I don't think you have yet told us Debater your personal views on your leaders's craven position on this issue. I have spoken to a number of progressive friends who were prepared to hold their noses and vote for Justin who now see him as an unprincipled weakling and who now have enhanced regard for Tom Mulcair. Your reticence on this point (as well as Pondering's) makes me wonder if you are among them?

I think I was clear in this thread http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/mulcair-opposes-harpers-police... but I will reiterate and expand.

I disagree with Bill C 51 but I recognize that I am in the minority. Stringent oversight would help. I don't know if Trudeau will, if elected, put in the kind of oversight that is needed. He hasn't provided details as far as I know which is the logical move from a campaigning perspective. If he were to provide even broad details he would be open to criticism from both ends which would be background noise to people because they aren't paying close attention right now.

I wish there were a political party in Canada capable of arguing against C 51. The NDP's response was long delayed impotent bluster. I don't buy the explanation that their response needed careful thought. Their position is shallow. How would this bill have prevented the "terrorist" attacks we have experienced in Canada?

NorthReport quoted the following in the cheap suit thread:

NorthReport wrote:

 - from the comment section


anne cameron • 9 days ago

Amazing, really. And Intriguing. This huge spy system, costing who knows how many billions per year, eavesdropping on all of us, and the purveyors of child pornography seem immune. These spy guys seem able to hear people whispering to each other in hidden alleys and even , who knows, closets, but they can't slam down on those who get their kicks watching little children abused and tortured. Makes a person suspect the spies aren't all that good at their jobs. Also makes a person wonder how much of the incredible profit from porn is winding up in which pockets.
It's true.. I've seldom met a conspiracy theory I didn't find interesting... almost as interesting as the question HOW MUCH is all this snooping costing us? And why not use that money for social improvement programmes?
Jeebus, it's like something out of MAD magazine. Black spy vs white spy.
And to think they linked arms and marched chanting Je Suis Charlie because of their commitment to free speech.
Amazing. Really.

 

  • Aaron Sheldon  anne cameron • 9 days ago

    In the 2014 fiscal year CIHI spent ~$100,000,000 on analyzing health care information to improve the health of all Canadians.

    https://secure.cihi.ca/free_pr...

    (quick plug for the CIHI online health system reporting:http://yourhealthsystem.cihi.c... )

    Yet in the same fiscal year ~$450,000,000 was spent on a basically useless security establishment, at least in the broad statistical sense of population health benefits.

    http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/r...

    WE AS A NATION CHOOSE TO SPEND NEARLY 5 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY ON EVENTS OF SUCH RARITY THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN BE CALLED AS RISKY AS LIGHTNING STRIKES.

    For example ~7% of Canadians suffer from diabetes, ~200,000 Canadians are diagnosed with cancer, ~30% of all deaths are directly attributable to heart disease. Yet less than 1 in 10,000,000 are physically impacted by anything that can even be approximately squeezed into the label of terrorism, a percentage so laughably small as to defy comparison with the health risks we truly face.

    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-...

    http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer...

    http://www.heartandstroke.com/...

    As to the lack of competency, in many ways the scale with which the security establishment is collecting data has created a disincentive to fostering technical analytic expertise. Why bother inventing nuanced techniques to extract as much information from the smallest amount of data when you can just collect and store it all? With respect to analytic capabilities, particularly algorithmic market segmentation, the private sector is light years ahead of the security establishment; hence the security establishment piggybacks on the techniques used in the private sector. The combination of strong financial incentives, and the throttling of data because private sector servers can only extract data from clients directly connected to them, has lead to an explosion of sophisticated analytic techniques. On the other hand, the security establishment seems to prefer an attitude of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/02/10/Privacy-Protection-Got-Tougher/

As "The Party of Social Justice" these are the arguments I would expect to be hearing from the NDP. I wish the Liberals would do so, but I don't expect it of them. They are a moderately socially progressive establishment party.

Being against C 51 should have been a no brainer for the NDP. This should already be a core issue for the NDP. They should have a position on the existing laws which are already too invasive. Privacy rights are a natural fit for the NDP and would (IMO) win them significant support if they had a coherent argument and vision for the relationship between security and privacy as well as the overall issue of the public and the government's relationship to data. That is, we are entering an age of massive amounts of data being available. Who will have access to which data will determine our future more than any other single issue. Knowledge really is power. The corruption in Quebec could not have happened if government data were more accessable even if it were just to universities, think tanks and journalists.

 

Jacob Two-Two

As always with you, Pondering, there is no NDP misdemeanour that is too small to condemn, and no Liberal crime too large to overlook. This horribly fascist bill that you claim to be against is opposed by the NDP and supported by the Liberals, yet still the Liberals are right and the NDP are wrong. Just like always. No matter what the situation or context.

The only value you bring to discussions is the amusement of watching you tie yourself into rhetorical knots.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always with you, Pondering, there is no NDP misdemeanour that is too small to condemn, and no Liberal crime too large to overlook. This horribly fascist bill that you claim to be against is opposed by the NDP and supported by the Liberals, yet still the Liberals are right and the NDP are wrong. Just like always. No matter what the situation or context.

The only value you bring to discussions is the amusement of watching you tie yourself into rhetorical knots.

I agree with your post. With the Liberals, it is entirely about power; it has NOTING to do with being moral and doing the right thing. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror and not feel embarassed and ashamed.

Debater

The reason I posted this was to show that this is a difficult issue for both opposition leaders because no matter what they do there will be criticism either way.  Justin Trudeau gets criticized from the left as not protecting civil liberties, and Tom Mulcair gets criticized from the right as being soft on terrorism.

It's tough for both Trudeau & Mulcair to strike the correct balance on this issue without suffering for it.

As usual, Harper gets off easy.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

The reason I posted this was to show that this is a difficult issue for both opposition leaders because no matter what they do there will be criticism either way.  Justin Trudeau gets criticized from the left as not protecting civil liberties, and Tom Mulcair gets criticized from the right as being soft on terrorism.

It's tough for both Trudeau & Mulcair to strike the correct balance on this issue without suffering for it.

As usual, Harper gets off easy.


Sure that must be the reason why you post these anti-NDP articles all the time. You are just showing how Harper gets off easy. Now why would people not believe you?

josh

Using a Sun columnist to make a point? I would have thought you'd be better than that.

Jacob Two-Two

There is no "correct balance". The correct position on rights and freedoms is standing up for them and denouncing those who would erode them in the strongest terms. The politicians who seek "balance" on every issue, even the most clearly one-sided issues, are merely showing that they can't be trusted. The Liberals are trying to seek a "balance" between democracy and fascism. There is no legitimacy in such a position. It is merely being spineless and trying to run back and forth to capture public opinion. It is the exact opposite of leadership.

This issue is a perfect example of how leading a society is much more than following polls or even more dependable measures of public opinion. In times of stress and uncertainty, public opinion tends to shift all over the place, supporting one extreme position one day and another the next. A real leader anticipates not where the crowd is facing now but where they will end up when the smoke clears. A real leader cuts a path through the forest before the people even know that they want to go in that direction, so that when they finally get there, the work has already been done.

The Liberals have looked to see where people were already facing, and then jumped out in front to try to take credit for the direction, and call it leadership. When people see that they were walking into a dead end, they will see the person "leading" them as the fool he is. This is the biggest misstep the Liberals have made yet.

Jacob Two-Two

josh wrote:
Using a Sun columnist to make a point? I would have thought you'd be better than that.

Then you really haven't been paying attention.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Having Anthony Furey criticise the NDP is kind of expected for a right-winger of his ilk.

What is not expected is Carol Goar criticising Trudeau. I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone. 

ajaykumar

There was never an orange crush to begin with. The NDp won seats in Quebec and and a few elsewhere because of how unpopular Ignatieff was. Quebecers change party after a decade, they are never Satisfied with one party. Orange crush would have been if  the NDp actually formed government for once! Gaining official opposition status is not a big deal! Adq won official opposition status in Quebec in 2007! And it collapsed back into third place.NDp wasn't able to attract crowds like Trudeau will! Reason for NDP 2011 gains= Quebec+angry liberals+ negative campaign. The NDP was and is a protest party, with absolutely nothing to attract voters. NDP also lacks charisma. real leaders like Pierre Trudeau come to the scene, and win right away.

Jacob Two-Two

And I heard they pee in their pants and their mother dresses them funny.

Debater

montrealer58 wrote:

Having Anthony Furey criticise the NDP is kind of expected for a right-winger of his ilk.

What is not expected is Carol Goar criticising Trudeau. I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone. 

What does Carol Goar expect Justin Trudeau to do?

He's the leader of the 3rd party and we are in a Majority Parliament.

He has proposed amendments and greater oversight for the bill.  The fact that Harper is a dictator who refuses to accept any Opposition input is not Trudeau's fault.

Trudeau is also trying to avoid Harper's trap of appearing weak on terrorism.  If the Opposition parties look weak on national security, Harper will win the issue, and perhaps win the election.

josh

Defeatist and Loserspeak. I'm sure barring immigration from Muslim countries would also be popular. Maybe the opposition parties shouldn't oppose that for fear of looking soft on Islamic extremism.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
If the Opposition parties look weak on national security, Harper will win the issue, and perhaps win the election.

It takes a great deal of strength to stand by your principles even if they go against the grain of public opinion, and that is why right-wingers often win, because they are on a mission and they don't care what anyone else thinks.

I'm reminded of the 2004 federal election in the state of Wisconsin. Kerry didn't have a clear position on the Iraq war, and the race for President was very close in that state. The Senator at the time, Russ Feingold, had actually voted against hte Patriot Act in the post 9/11 climate, and even though Bush characterized his critics as "soft on terror," Feingold was re-elected in that state quite handily.

Jacob Two-Two

Debater wrote:

What does Carol Goar expect Justin Trudeau to do?

He's the leader of the 3rd party and we are in a Majority Parliament.

Yes, this is the whole point. The bill is passing regardless so Justin's support for it is completely unnecessary. It is just him being weak and easily manipulated.

Quote:

He has proposed amendments and greater oversight for the bill.  The fact that Harper is a dictator who refuses to accept any Opposition input is not Trudeau's fault.

So if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? If they can't stop a bad bill that weakens democracy they should support it? Why not just go all the way and fold the Liberals into the Conservative party? Then they might get a voice in Harper's fascist dictatorship.

Quote:

Trudeau is also trying to avoid Harper's trap of appearing weak on terrorism.  If the Opposition parties look weak on national security, Harper will win the issue, and perhaps win the election.

Well, god forbid that Justin's attempts to remain popular be impeded by our basic rights and freedoms. Better eject those immediately. Oh wait! Public opinion changed again! We need them back now. No wait! There was another "terrorist" attack and the polls have changed back! Better throw them away again! No wait...

You get the idea.

janfromthebruce

Liberals had been losing voter share starting with Martin and a ten long year decline. It began with Adscam and making promises they never bothered to commit until the dying days of Martin's minority govt. That including losing seats to Layton and Harper. That continued under Dion, and Iggy. Orange crush didn't just happen in 2011.

People were sick of Liberal corruption and faking progressiveness.

ajaykumar

janfromthebruce wrote:

Liberals had been losing voter share starting with Martin and a ten long year decline. It began with Adscam and making promises they never bothered to commit until the dying days of Martin's minority govt. That including losing seats to Layton and Harper. That continued under Dion, and Iggy. Orange crush didn't just happen in 2011.

People were sick of Liberal corruption and faking progressiveness.

Which explains why voters gave us a majority in ontario. 

welder welder's picture

ajaykumar wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Liberals had been losing voter share starting with Martin and a ten long year decline. It began with Adscam and making promises they never bothered to commit until the dying days of Martin's minority govt. That including losing seats to Layton and Harper. That continued under Dion, and Iggy. Orange crush didn't just happen in 2011.

People were sick of Liberal corruption and faking progressiveness.

Which explains why voters gave us a majority in ontario. 

Wait until the blessed Liberals in Ontario give us a Hudakesque budget...

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The guy who signs the cheques for Ontario is Don Drummond

thorin_bane

ajaykumar wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Liberals had been losing voter share starting with Martin and a ten long year decline. It began with Adscam and making promises they never bothered to commit until the dying days of Martin's minority govt. That including losing seats to Layton and Harper. That continued under Dion, and Iggy. Orange crush didn't just happen in 2011.

People were sick of Liberal corruption and faking progressiveness.

Which explains why voters gave us a majority in ontario. 

 

Ah OK federal and provincial liberals are the same. I guess we can finally say that their progressive BS is a sham given the Libs in Quebec, and BC are the right wing parties. Thanks for clarifying.

terrytowel

Not sure where to put this but here

Kathleen Wynne confirmed on Friday she was negotiating with former NDP MP Glenn Thibeault while he was still the NDP caucus chair!

Says Wynne, “I became aware that Glenn Thibeault would be willing to consider running for us. I was very interested . . . once I met Glenn, I was convinced that he was the right candidate for us,” she said.

“It was at that point last November — and well before any conversation with Andrew Olivier — that I decided that this was one of those situations where I would appoint our candidate.”

Glenn Thibeault resigned as caucus chair on December 2, 2014 citing family reasons.

Guess we now know what those reasons really were.

Rokossovsky

welder wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

Liberals had been losing voter share starting with Martin and a ten long year decline. It began with Adscam and making promises they never bothered to commit until the dying days of Martin's minority govt. That including losing seats to Layton and Harper. That continued under Dion, and Iggy. Orange crush didn't just happen in 2011.

People were sick of Liberal corruption and faking progressiveness.

Which explains why voters gave us a majority in ontario. 

Wait until the blessed Liberals in Ontario give us a Hudakesque budget...

They already have.

The only difference is that they are using the funds leveraged of sales of revenue generating assets as the bankroll for P3 infrastructure start ups. Privatizing the original assets for private profit, and likewise privatizing government services for private profit, through exorbidant long term "service fees" that will increase "overhead" costs, for the sake of shifting the liability from the "debt" column.

Less service for more profit, basically.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always with you, Pondering, there is no NDP misdemeanour that is too small to condemn, and no Liberal crime too large to overlook. This horribly fascist bill that you claim to be against is opposed by the NDP and supported by the Liberals, yet still the Liberals are right and the NDP are wrong. Just like always. No matter what the situation or context.

The only value you bring to discussions is the amusement of watching you tie yourself into rhetorical knots.

I agree with your post. With the Liberals, it is entirely about power; it has NOTING to do with being moral and doing the right thing. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror and not feel embarassed and ashamed.

Do you blame a lion for roaring? If you expect the same behavior from the NDP and the Liberals you are pretty much saying there is no difference between the two.

Aristotleded24

So Pondering, considering all the issues where the Liberals have supported Harper, including the issue of Bill C-51, why is it that you want to see the Conservative government voted out?

tducey1

If you ask me you get Tom Mulcair out on the hustings during the election and get him to meet people and talk about poliices he'll come off as more impressive than Trudeau and help the nDP pick up seats.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I agree with your post. With the Liberals, it is entirely about power; it has NOTING to do with being moral and doing the right thing. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror and not feel embarassed and ashamed.

Do you blame a lion for roaring?

Of course not. But you also don't walk up to one and put your head in its mouth. That's what you're doing when you support the Justin-fronted Liberal party of crooks and liars.

Quote:

If you expect the same behavior from the NDP and the Liberals you are pretty much saying there is no difference between the two.

Uh, yes. That is what you would be saying... except nobody said that.

I always feel like you're having a conversation with the voices in your head and just sharing one side of it with us.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I agree with your post. With the Liberals, it is entirely about power; it has NOTING to do with being moral and doing the right thing. I don't know how they can look themselves in the mirror and not feel embarassed and ashamed.

Do you blame a lion for roaring?

Of course not. But you also don't walk up to one and put your head in its mouth. That's what you're doing when you support the Justin-fronted Liberal party of crooks and liars.

Quote:

If you expect the same behavior from the NDP and the Liberals you are pretty much saying there is no difference between the two.

Uh, yes. That is what you would be saying... except nobody said that.

I always feel like you're having a conversation with the voices in your head and just sharing one side of it with us.

Jacob:

Aside from the fact I had no idea what Pondering's obscure point was, I have NOTHING to add to your TRULY EXCELLENT reply!

ajaykumar

Funny how ndp folks are complaining that this is a right wing sun columnist. Excusez moi, but I saw NDP by election candidates on the right wing sun news network bashing the liberals. I see NDP strategists on sun news all the time! Hypocrisy folks!

Jacob Two-Two

Now ajay. We all know you're a frothing dittohead without a single original thought, but even you can't seriously believe that Sun News isn't right-wing. I think you're just so eager to attack the NDP from all sides that you're tripping over your own rhetoric.

ajaykumar

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Now ajay. We all know you're a frothing dittohead without a single original thought, but even you can't seriously believe that Sun News isn't right-wing. I think you're just so eager to attack the NDP from all sides that you're tripping over your own rhetoric.

thanks for the kind words

Jacob Two-Two

And thank you for all the clear and cogent contributions you make to the discussions here.

thorin_bane

No really I think he does the Libs a truly great service by being on here. Nothing says entitlement more, nor points out that they too have their wing nut cheer leader section just like the NDP and Cons.

I mean if the Libs want to point out how all parties are the same, then this helps illustrate that.

ajaykumar
MegB

JTT, no personal attacks please.

Jacob Two-Two

Sorry Meg. I'll tone it down.