Thomas Mulcair

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

genstrike wrote:

George Victor wrote:

What you apparently don't realize is that you are making it possible for Steve to take over. Completely.

You know, the last time I heard that line was from some Young Liberal clown when I said I was voting NDP.

 

And who did you decide to vote for?  You and U?

 

Once again desperately trying to avoid the substance of the posts.   Amazing how consistent some are, regardless of how foolish they look.

Erik Redburn

*doublepost*

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

George, what the hell are you on about here?

Are you actually demonizing other babblers for NOT backing an electoral pact with the Liberals, even though it's been repeatedly proven that such a pact can't work and that the days when an alliance with the Liberals could produce progressive change are gone forever?

Or are you just torqued off that people here don't unanimously accept that the NDP HAS to choose Thomas Mulcair as it's next leader.

You do remember that Mulcair came within a hair of blowing what should have been an easy re-election victory in Outremont, don't you?

In any case, you really need to chill out and stop treating everyone else in this thread as if they're spoiled children and YOU are the only grown up.

Switch to de-caf, willya?

(to the mods...yes, I KNOW I'm knda shadow-moderating here...but somebody needed to tell George to back off).

George Victor

quote: "And to address your original post Nicki, Lawrence Martin is one the establishment's most effective conservaties at appearing to be otherwise."

 

 

You are forewarned, nicky. Think like Erik: Don't read Harperland!

Erik Redburn

nicky wrote:

Lawrence Martin has written a column on Mulcair in today's Globe.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/feeling-the-force-of-the-mulcair-effect/article1848673/

 

Mulcair seems to be emerging as the obvious next NDP leader. To me he is one of the most forceful and articulate MPs in Parliament and I would cetianly consider him as the next leader.

I would be interested in others' views of his strengths and weaknesses.

 

And to address your original post Nicki, Lawrence Martin is one the establishment's most effective conservaties at appearing to be otherwise.  He has a rep for being 'independent' but led the tide against Chretien, after years of mindless support, when the old boy decided to run one last time on a slightly more progressive platform -ie, offering public dollars to the public to weaken the influence of lobbies on the election process.  He again turned out to be wrong.   In BC these false friend were major supporters of Carole James but have now moved onto supporting other pro-estabishment NDPers like Farnsworth.   Thats all it means, another way to keep us from defeating Brian Mulroney and Richard Nixon.

Erik Redburn

Yes Nicki, do take George's advice, always heed the warning of 'progressives' who show the least resistence to what guys like Harper are already doing.   And always take self referential comments and insults as meaningful evidence of independent thought. 

Erik Redburn

*stupid rabble software*

Erik Redburn

Ken Burch wrote:

George, what the hell are you on about here?

Are you actually demonizing other babblers for NOT backing an electoral pact with the Liberals, even though it's been repeatedly proven that such a pact can't work and that the days when an alliance with the Liberals could produce progressive change are gone forever?

Or are you just torqued off that people here don't unanimously accept that the NDP HAS to choose Thomas Mulcair as it's next leader.

You do remember that Mulcair came within a hair of blowing what should have been an easy re-election victory in Outremont, don't you?

In any case, you really need to chill out and stop treating everyone else in this thread as if they're spoiled children and YOU are the only grown up.

Switch to de-caf, willya?

(to the mods...yes, I KNOW I'm knda shadow-moderating here...but somebody needed to tell George to back off).

 

George has become a self supporting institution here and therefore cannot be touched, regardless of his long record of abusing others.   I mostly find it funny how often party loyalists switch back and forth between saying its Impossible to work with Liberals to its the Only possibility (or Else) etc etc.    Although I suppose it does show another sort of consistency, one I just never got used to I suppose.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Fidel are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?  If you are disagreeing then I am not quite sure what you are saying.  Are you saying that we should ignore Israel until the evil empire collapses?

Why not focus on vicious empire central rather than one of its tiny minions of doom thousands of miles away? And there are plenty of gross human rights violations happening right here in this hemisphere. The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left. Writing's on the wall for Israel as it was for South Afreeka.

Colombia, Haiti, Guantanamo, Honduras, El Salvador, Canada etc are good candidates for democratization.

George Victor

Ken Burch wrote:

George, what the hell are you on about here?

Are you actually demonizing other babblers for NOT backing an electoral pact with the Liberals, even though it's been repeatedly proven that such a pact can't work and that the days when an alliance with the Liberals could produce progressive change are gone forever?

Or are you just torqued off that people here don't unanimously accept that the NDP HAS to choose Thomas Mulcair as it's next leader.

You do remember that Mulcair came within a hair of blowing what should have been an easy re-election victory in Outremont, don't you?

In any case, you really need to chill out and stop treating everyone else in this thread as if they're spoiled children and YOU are the only grown up.

Switch to de-caf, willya?

(to the mods...yes, I KNOW I'm knda shadow-moderating here...but somebody needed to tell George to back off).

 

quote: "the days when an alliance with the Liberals could produce progressive change are gone forever?"

 

Hadn't noticed that, Ken. Having watched it work very effectively a couple of times. Perhaps you can explain what has changed...besides the fact that since the last time there was convergence of strategic thinking, EVERYONE has become dependent on THE MARKET for a satisfactory life in their "Golden Years."?  AND with the movement toward every vote counting, placing a grand mixture of people and parties together...bettering th first past the post mindset.

 

In Quebec, I remember Mulcair standing up to the bastards who decided to sell out a wilderness area to developers, and told his own "Liberal" government that they looked kinda like sellouts.

People everywhere are looking for that kind of intestinal fortitude, less whine.

Polunatic2

 

Quote:
Mulcair seems to be emerging as the obvious next NDP leader.
It's probably premature to consider any frontrunners at this point isn't it? I would imagine there might be a lot of NDPers who may be distrustful about both his Liberal past as well as his musings about working with the Libs on the centre-left. Let's leave aside the musings about the next federal budget. 

From Martin's piece:

Quote:
If you ask anyone in the House of Commons whom they’d least like to debate, Mr. Mulcair would finish near the top of the list. His aggressive, surgical technique was on display last week in a committee hearing concerning Kelly Block, a Conservative MP whose staffer, Russell Ullyatt, leaked a confidential pre-budget report.
I'd love to be fly on the wall if Unionist organizes that meeting. 

Quote:
Being a former Liberal, Mr. Mulcair has no doubt the two parties can work together. “On the centre-left, we have to be just as smart as conservatives were on the centre-right when they coalesced. We’ve got to learn from that, otherwise we’ll end up with Harper governing with 37 per cent of the vote again."
Could Mulclair be hinting about strategic voting?  

When the Cons re-"coalesced", it was the "radical", unprogressive conservatives who prevailed. Were there to be a (probably post-election) Lib-NDP "entente" of sorts (not a merger), it's hard to imagine the "radical" left (NDP) emerging as the dominant force. There's likely to be more water than wine. Then again, anything looks better than the Harper Conservatives including a Liberal minority with NDP support. 

 

 

George Victor

Fidel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Fidel are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?  If you are disagreeing then I am not quite sure what you are saying.  Are you saying that we should ignore Israel until the evil empire collapses?

Why not focus on vicious empire central rather than one of its tiny minions of doom thousands of miles away? And there are plenty of gross human rights violations happening right here in this hemisphere. The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left. Writing's on the wall for Israel as it was for South Afreeka.

Colombia, Haiti, Guantanamo, Honduras, El Salvador, Canada etc are good candidates for democratization.

Marvelous, Fidel!

Life, the unive...

"Beep  Beep"

"What have you got there Anthropologist Frankenfurter"

"Not sure, the machine that goes beep seems to be indicating that there is something under this rubble"

scurried digging

"Oh look we seem to have found the reason the left was considered hopeless by the mass of working people in Canada in the early 21rst century"

"What do you mean- they were responsible for so much good at one time and had plenty of good ideas"

"I think in the venacular of the time they called it - couldn't get their defecation together or something like that"

"Huh?"

"They were so busy arguing about who's issues mattered the most, and how many angels could fit on a campaign button they never realized that they were missing the the very thing they said they wanted"

"What was that"

"A clue"

"A clue about what- where the treasure was?"

"Oh they knew where the treasure had gone - to banks and the super-wealthy - so that wasn't it"

"A clue about what then?"

"How to talk to real live working people and the growing poor of the time and not yell at each other over some version of the pure religion.   It seems they were so busy being involved in urination matches that they didn't notice that they weren't actually addressing the day to day problems of most of Canadians and all their fighting and lecturing just turned people off."

"Sad really, because they spent so much time flinging monkey feces at each other they never actually got out and spoke to people that didn't live and breath politics 24 hours a day"

"Too true Sheldon, too true"

 

Beep  Beep

"Hey what do we have here - it looks like a hockey player drinking coffee..."

 

Erik Redburn

Fidel wrote:

The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left.

 

That kind of comment doesn't belong on the left anymore Fidel, if it ever did.  Supporting your official leadership no matter how little they support you is perhaps one thing that damages the left's own credibility more than the official opposition ever could.

George Victor

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

"Beep  Beep"

"What have you got there Anthropologist Frankenfurter"

"Not sure, the machine that goes beep seems to be indicating that there is something under this rubble"

scurried digging

"Oh look we seem to have found the reason the left was considered hopeless by the mass of working people in Canada in the early 21rst century"

"What do you mean- they were responsible for so much good at one time and had plenty of good ideas"

"I think in the venacular of the time they called it - couldn't get their defecation together or something like that"

"Huh?"

"They were so busy arguing about who's issues mattered the most, and how many angels could fit on a campaign button they never realized that they were missing the the very thing they said they wanted"

"What was that"

"A clue"

 

 

 

Some student of anthropology your are, Life...the Univ....

Any specialist in petrified scat caould have told them that once identifying this condition ("couldn't get their defecation together") it would be a simple matter of measuring the objects to see whose took the prize for size!

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

"Beep  Beep"

"What have you got there Anthropologist Frankenfurter"

"Not sure, the machine that goes beep seems to be indicating that there is something under this rubble"

scurried digging

"Oh look we seem to have found the reason the left was considered hopeless by the mass of working people in Canada in the early 21rst century"

"What do you mean- they were responsible for so much good at one time and had plenty of good ideas"

"I think in the venacular of the time they called it - couldn't get their defecation together or something like that"

"Huh?"

"They were so busy arguing about who's issues mattered the most, and how many angels could fit on a campaign button they never realized that they were missing the the very thing they said they wanted"

"What was that"

"A clue"

"A clue about what- where the treasure was?"

"Oh they knew where the treasure had gone - to banks and the super-wealthy - so that wasn't it"

"A clue about what then?"

"How to talk to real live working people and the growing poor of the time and not yell at each other over some version of the pure religion.   It seems they were so busy being involved in urination matches that they didn't notice that they weren't actually addressing the day to day problems of most of Canadians and all their fighting and lecturing just turned people off."

"Sad really, because they spent so much time flinging monkey feces at each other they never actually got out and spoke to people that didn't live and breath politics 24 hours a day"

"Too true Sheldon, too true"

 

Beep  Beep

"Hey what do we have here - it looks like a hockey player drinking coffee..."

 

 

You're making even less sense than George and Fidel are now.  Congatulations, we've hit a new low.

Life, the unive...

Yes you have hit a new low.  I agree.

George Victor

Pour yourself a coffee, Erik.

Erik Redburn

Are you even capable of explaining that jibe, or should I just send an uncalled-for ad-hominum complaint forthwith?  I never minded exchanging the odd insult but I like to at least see some substance i can reply to rationally.   

George Victor

"Anthropologist Frankenfurter."   !

 

 

 

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

Pour yourself a coffee, Erik.

 

Why?   Am I the one proving incapable of replying to the substance of others posts -with some substance?  Or is this just your usual attempt at acting superior?

George Victor

"A clue about what then?"

"How to talk to real live working people and the growing poor of the time and not yell at each other over some version of the pure religion.   It seems they were so busy being involved in urination matches that they didn't notice that they weren't actually addressing the day to day problems of most of Canadians and all their fighting and lecturing just turned people off."

 

This clearly is at the heart of what needs to be done.

Care to see the last two letters to the editor that got printed. Two different papers. Within the last two weeks.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

"Anthropologist Frankenfurter."   !

 

 

 

 

Oh don't be so uncharacteristically shy now George, what exactly is the *meaning* of that comment?  Do tell.  Can either of you even do that much?  If not then I'll just have to ascribe it to the usual diversion tactics.

George Victor

"Working people and the growin poor" are the substance of both.  Nothing about Obamba. 

George Victor

Any evidence of lack of "progressiveness" in anything I've written in this thread so far?  (Great Gaia the wine has, like people, only improved with age!)

Life, the unive...

If you bothered to read for anything other than your own brilliance you would find my comment flows directly from the previous comment I made in the thread.  One just does it using the techniques learned in Mrs. Johnstone's Creative Writing course.  Now you might quibble about whether it was a sucessful use of those techniques but it is germaine to the direction this nonsensical thread has gone.

"The usual diversion tactics" 

Where do you get this material? Do you have a writer supplying you with punch-lines?

George Victor

Erik, it has come to me that we, you and me, are the last people posting.

Sleep tight, old chap. 

I certainly will.

Life, the unive...

And with that Bugs and I will be exiting stage left...............

George Victor

And Life, I do wish you would make clear just who you directed that to.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why not focus on vicious empire central rather than one of its tiny minions of doom thousands of miles away? And there are plenty of gross human rights violations happening right here in this hemisphere. The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left. Writing's on the wall for Israel as it was for South Afreeka.

Colombia, Haiti, Guantanamo, Honduras, El Salvador, Canada etc are good candidates for democratization.

Marvelous, Fidel!

Superhuman! The ability to forget, in a space of moments, that it is Mulcair who has gratuitously introduced "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" into the political arena. And instead of lecturing Mulcair (out of bounds, because he might be the Dauphin, and we might be worshipping at his boots soon), Fidel and George ludicrously attack those who protest Mulcair's obsession with Israel.

 

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

"A clue about what then?"

"How to talk to real live working people and the growing poor of the time and not yell at each other over some version of the pure religion.   It seems they were so busy being involved in urination matches that they didn't notice that they weren't actually addressing the day to day problems of most of Canadians and all their fighting and lecturing just turned people off."

 

This clearly is at the heart of what needs to be done.

Care to see the last two letters to the editor that got printed. Two different papers. Within the last two weeks.

 

Which explains exactly nothing, now does it.  Or do you see this as another chance to show you too have published the odd letter?  You'll have to get in line here.    Such strange behaviour when it comes to denial.

To get back to wht I was arguing, before this odd piece of plitical tyeatre, I wonder if the average voter is as conservative about the current state of Israel or the need to follow leaders as some on Babble.ca seem to be now?  And now that I mention it, I wonder if theyd be as offended by moderately controversial stands on foreign states as being refered to the 'great unread' by their self annointed defenders?   Hmm.

Erik Redburn

*fucking rabble.ca software -again*

Erik Redburn

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

If you bothered to read for anything other than your own brilliance you would find my comment flows directly from the previous comment I made in the thread.  One just does it using the techniques learned in Mrs. Johnstone's Creative Writing course.  Now you might quibble about whether it was a sucessful use of those techniques but it is germaine to the direction this nonsensical thread has gone.

"The usual diversion tactics" 

Where do you get this material? Do you have a writer supplying you with punch-lines?

 

Diversion tactics, as in the refusal to addess to the substance of others posts, or only posting gratuitous insults, which might have some impact if they made any sense.  Please, lets not use creative writing class as an excuse folks.  Every writer knows you can't teach such things.

George Victor

Question:  What is the difference betwen U and a vulture.

Ans: The vulture does not have the tenacity, the singlemindedness of purpose, and the exquisite timing, to catch someone in his cups.   

Erik Redburn

Unionist wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why not focus on vicious empire central rather than one of its tiny minions of doom thousands of miles away? And there are plenty of gross human rights violations happening right here in this hemisphere. The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left. Writing's on the wall for Israel as it was for South Afreeka.

Colombia, Haiti, Guantanamo, Honduras, El Salvador, Canada etc are good candidates for democratization.

Marvelous, Fidel!

Superhuman! The ability to forget, in a space of moments, that it is Mulcair who has gratuitously introduced "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" into the political arena. And instead of lecturing Mulcair (out of bounds, because he might be the Dauphin, and we might be worshipping at his boots soon), Fidel and George ludicrously attack those who protest Mulcair's obsession with Israel.

 

 

A truly remarkable display Unionist....and I commend you on your principled stand against such opposition...    The more vaccuous their own posts, the more they try to label others as such.   Weird.  Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprsed after all these years on the inside myself.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

Question:  What is the difference betwen U and a vulture.

Ans: The vulture does not have the tenacity, the singlemindedness of purpose, and the exquisite timing, to catch someone in his cups.   

 

I suppose I should send a complaint, if only for others sake, but your clumsey attempt to accuse me of drinking too much or too little  is much too dull to bother.   Hint: If you want to question someone elses wit in public you really should sharpen your own.  Eg: using a "U" for "you" doesn't quite slice it outside of tv.

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

"Working people and the growin poor" are the substance of both.  Nothing about Obamba. 

 

And no again, despite your refusal to addess my other challenge to your self described authority on everything 'average' in another thread, this thread was about why some leftists will no longer support Mulcair because of his unyielding support of Israel.  The inference that not backing up his support of that apartheid state would somehow defeat the asprirations o the working poor everywhere has yet to be established.  At least not in any way detectable to other humans, who may not be so sure of their own understanding of the limits of public debate.

Fidel

Erik Redburn wrote:

Unionist wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why not focus on vicious empire central rather than one of its tiny minions of doom thousands of miles away? And there are plenty of gross human rights violations happening right here in this hemisphere. The poor Israelis are outnumbered by all those Muslims and al-CIA'da wanting to end them. It's a tough PR battle for the left. Writing's on the wall for Israel as it was for South Afreeka.

Colombia, Haiti, Guantanamo, Honduras, El Salvador, Canada etc are good candidates for democratization.

Marvelous, Fidel!

Superhuman! The ability to forget, in a space of moments, that it is Mulcair who has gratuitously introduced "anti-Zionism = anti-semitism" into the political arena. And instead of lecturing Mulcair (out of bounds, because he might be the Dauphin, and we might be worshipping at his boots soon), Fidel and George ludicrously attack those who protest Mulcair's obsession with Israel.

 

 

A truly remarkable display Unionist....and I commend you on your principled stand against such opposition...    The more vaccuous their own posts, the more they try to label others as such.   Weird.  Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprsed after all these years on the inside myself.

I think the really important thing here is to bring down the effective opposition party's one MP in Quebec. That should provide a boost to democratization efforts in the Middle East. Surely it's all about principles and not lame FPTP electioneering from obtuse angles here in the Northern colony. Tear up your cards in Outremont, because we'd sooner see what's left of the country pawned off to Israel's imperial master-enabler nation than betray the principal. Lo', behold the speck in Thomas' eye.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Since this is at 139 posts and counting, I've started a successor thread here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-parte-deux#comm...

 

Winston

I'm just wondering: what the f*ck does the Palestinian conflict have to do with the Federal Canadian political scene anyway?  I'm not saying that I don't have an incredible amount of sympathy for the ordeals that average Palestinian folk face, but one of the reasons for my distaste for the Conservative government is its unequivocal support for Israel no matter what.  I would be equally aghast (and could not vote for) a party that was as unequivocally on the "Palestinian" side of things.  I think that BOTH Likud AND Hamas have their heads up their collective as$es, and I would not want my government to take EITHER side.

Honestly, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is up to the Israelis and Palestinians and is, for the most part, NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Far more important to me is the state of affairs in my own country, Canada.  When we cease to have a third of our own children living below the poverty line and when we can abide by international standards on carbon emissions, then maybe, perhaps maybe, I will hazard some time to worrying about a foreign issue, I (as well as most of you) seem to know f*ck all about.

In the mean time, if Mulcair, or anyone else can advance the cause of Social Democracy in THIS COUNTRY, while preventing my sorry a$s from being sent abroad on another stupid war, power to them!                                                                                                                                                                                                         

genstrike

Winston wrote:

Honestly, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is up to the Israelis and Palestinians and is, for the most part, NONE OF MY BUSINESS.        

Actually, when the Canadian government massively supports Israeli apartheid (to the point of being the Israeli state's #1 or #2 ally, depending on who you ask), it is all of our business.  I know foreign policy may seem boring or irrelevant to some people, but when the foreign policy of my government is directly complicit in the suffering and oppression of people around the globe, that's a problem.

And add to that the campaign to silence dissent on this issue domestically and the reverberations that that would have on progressive movements, and we've got ourselves a serious issue here.

Winston

Alright, Genstrike: you're absolutely correct.

Let's ensure that any members of the NDP who show any support for the continued existence of the state of Israel are defeated.  Let's ensure the NDP remains pure to the anti-Israeli "Apartheid" movement, that you are all so caught up in.  Let's co-opt every demonstration in Canada such that every issue becomes secondary to the plight of the Palestinian people as with "Gay Pride...and free Palestine" and "Keep water resources public...and free Palestine" and "Save public healthcare...and end Israeli apartheid."  You can have a party that is pure in this manner (one which even I will have difficulty voting for).  Meanwhile, kids in Canada will continue to go to school hungry, our nation will continue to send troops abroad on wars we all find deplorable, Canada will continue to be the laughingstock of the world in terms of Climate Change, while maintaining deplorable Third World living conditions for its aboriginal people. But at least the NDP will have remained true to your ridiculous ideologically-blinkered world view,

 

KenS

Erik Redburn wrote:

And hasn't Layton himself supported this supposedly frightening regime, when it served his own short term purpose?  Or at least what he thought at the time.  And aren't most of you still talking eagerly about 'overtaking' the Liberals, regardless of whether it merans Harper gets his majority?  Or why its impossible to do business with the other opposition parties?    

And really now, if this board is so far to the left of the 'average' Canadian then what does it matter if some here don't support the official NDP line on small considerations like the MiddleEast?

While one side in this run around does apply the itmus test of whether or not you support the NDP, I dont. Least of all on all its positions [which actually, no one around here cares whether you do or not].

But each of the 3 questions in the first paragraph is premised on a complete myth. I'm one of may not into 'overtaking the Liberals'. Though I will work with people who have that goal, and I dont want to expell them for it. That the NDP is not interested in working with the other parties is just silly. And less extreme forms of that are no less silly.

Erik Redburn wrote:

And do most Canadians really support Israel as mindlessly as certain pro-Zionists in all the official parties now do?  

Yes. Definitely. Except minus the 'mindless' part, for both "most Canadians" and the leaders of the NDP. In both cases people have conflicting and contradictory views. Its just that since you dont hear [or maybe do not listen] to the full expression of what 'most Canadians' think, you can maintain that the dream that they are more critical of Israel than the politicians, whose fuller positions you do hear and dont like.

When poll numbers are reported about how many Canadians dont like the latest action Israel is taken, you make assumptions they are generally critical of Israel. But Jack Layton, and pobably even Mulcair, would answer those poll questions the same as other Canadians. You just happen to know the latters positions in more detail.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Methinks certain self-described 'moderates' have just gotten into the habit of projecting their own poorly thought out biases onto the so-called mainstream. 

Wrong on two counts. In the first place, I'm not a 'moderate'- at least not on this question. So I dont have any 'poorly thought bias' to project out. But at any rate, my read of where most Canadians stand on Israel is no mere projection. They are with Jack Lyton on that. Less qualified in their support of Israel, if anything. They are a long way from you and I when it comes to Israel.

I dont think its hopeless, or that we have to pander to where they think position about Israel should be. But I do recognise the distance that needs to be travelled.

KenS

Ken Burch wrote:

George, what the hell are you on about here?

George is the mirror image of what he fights. Fight litmus tests with your own.

genstrike

Yes, because that is exactly what I said.

Also, why the scare quotes around "Apartheid"?  It is the best term in international law with which to describe the situation in Israel/Palestine.

Although, the above poster seems to have all the hallmarks of just another pro-apartheid troll...

KenS

Erik Redburn wrote:

I mostly find it funny how often party loyalists switch back and forth between saying its Impossible to work with Liberals to its the Only possibility (or Else) etc etc.    Although I suppose it does show another sort of consistency, one I just never got used to I suppose.

Add this to the list of your myths I was pointing out [top of post#143]. But I guess that if you want to stack what what one 'loyalist' said up against what some other 'loyalist' said... then, yes, there are many such 'inconsistencies'. But fair enough, we're all just a herd anyway.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I'm not sure what contradiction Erik is on about.  Of course it is possible to work with Liberals - and sometimes even desirable.  Electoral co-operation, on the other hand, is too stupid for words.

It is also possible, and sometimes even desirable, to work with Greens, Bloquistes and even Conservatives.

Winston

The quotes are because while I believe the state of Palestinian rights in the state of Israel is deplorable, I believe that the beast is a far different one than the apartheid that existed in South Africa.  In much the same way, while I deplore the Harper government (and the Martin/Chretien/Mulroney ones that preceded it), I think its a far stretch to compare them to Hitler (and not only for the risk of violating Godwin's Law).  I think you do a disservice to the cause of the Palestinian people by making such a comparison; rational people who might otherwise be receptive to your arguments are put off as soon as you make it.

All of this does nothing to negate the fact that I believe the Canadian Left has significant problems in its own backyard to solve before it tackles anything else.  History shows that societies with a high degree of equity at home are more likely to encourage their governments to pursue equitable policy abroad.  Witness the fact that Scandinavian countries give twice as much in foreign aid as Canada, and are far less likely to tie aid to trade as Canada so odiously does.

While I personally am not nearly as pro-Israel as Tom Mulcair is, if he is able to lead us to victory and in so doing make Canada a more equitable place, then I am willing to forgive his views on a conflict that Canada is a very minuscule bit player in, in the first place. 

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but what does the term apartheid have to do with Hitler?

I freely use the term apartheid to describe Canada's treatment of First Nations. Some raise their eyebrows, others agree whole heartedly. I feel confident that Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu would agree. Unlike the foes of the Palestinians and their fight for rights, anyone with any sense of what it means to be oppressed would easily use that term. The South Africans have not trademarked the word "Apartheid" so why should anyone else.

I have yet to see a real comprehensive list of merits Mulcair has gained that makes him a worthy candidate for leadership. Other than being fluently bilingual. well grounded in environmentalist issues and a good speaker, what else does he bring to the table to temper his obvious fixation with Israel.

Stockholm

dp

Pages

Topic locked