Why the NDP must reject Trudeau Dragon Slayer Myths and rebuild now

176 posts / 0 new
Last post
monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:
The NDP is going to have to find it's way in some position that the Liberals don't already own and that doesn't seem possible.

It's more than possible, it's both easy and obvious. ISDS. Investor State Dispute Settlement.

The NDP sort of went there a while back on TPP but then they dropped it.

There is a huge movement against it in Europe because it is also in CETA. Trans Canada is suing the States over Keystone and there are more suits against Canada so there are examples right now on how corporations can can force taxpayers to pay penalties to corporations just for exercising our democratic rights.

If many Europeans are against the ISDS, including leading politicians in multiple countries, enough that it is threatening the deal, and Canada doesn't want it, why can't we just drop it? The answer is we can just drop it. Those saying we can't are not backing up their claim.

On February 4th the Liberals are attending a TPP signing ceremony. It has no legal standing because it still has to be ratified and Trudeau has promised debates prior to that. The signing was a last minute plan and I think it is to help Obama push it through. If Obama succeeds the debates will lead to ratification based on the argument that we can't afford to be left out.

If we can stop ISDS in CETA, then it strengthens the argument against it in TPP. The argument that negotiations can't be reopened on TPP is that there are too many countries involved and we don't have a veto so the deal will just go ahead without us.

That isn't true of CETA. CETA has only two partners, Canada and the EU. There is no reason for either party to refuse the deal without that section. It can just be dropped.

Maude Barlow went to Europe to fight it because the movement against CETA is stronger there, maybe because it has the support of some political parties.

What are the two primary concerns of modern progressives? Climate change and income inequality. If there is a third it is the undermining of democracy. All three are made more difficult to fight by trade deals written to benefit corporations.

Progressives are looking for political leadership and not finding it. Taking this path would not have won this election, and probably not 2019 either, but it could set the stage for a return to opposition status and maybe even a win in 2023.

Why didn't you mention my personal priority? An antiwar foreign policy. If that doesn't fit at or near the top of the list then I've ceased being a progressive.

Climate change, I question that because the Greens own it and the NDP or Liberals don't want to take it away from them. It's one of those alligators in the swamp issues in my opinion. Humanity will have to suffer immensely before the mainstream hooks into it.

Income inequality, depending on what pie in the sky progressives choose to be the optimal. However, the NDP may someday choose to lead us to a European Scandinavian model?

And again I point out, our ideals are not what we have seen come to fruition. I can't see a day when we will be able to pull ourselves away from the US model of selfish capitalism so that we  become more like socially responsible capitalist countries of Europe.

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left. And I would say that it is the reason why we haven't been able to take ourselves closer to the Scandinavian model and further away from US tyranny. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left.

It would be nice if we went back to having one. The idea that the Liberal's at any level in Canada are left wing is a flat out lie. Christy Clark is exactly the same type of leader as Trudeau is turning out to be. Stand in front of the cameras and push the agenda his big business advisors tell him to. Of course those of us who have lived through many elections know that Liberal/Tory same old story is always the case no matter what Red Book lies the Liberals chose to sell to voters.

Trudeau has a nicer smile and a better demeanour than Harper but on all the major files he has all the same old policies as his Conservative predecessors because they both work for the same elite.

monty1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left.

It would be nice if we went back to having one. The idea that the Liberal's at any level in Canada are left wing is a flat out lie. Christy Clark is exactly the same type of leader as Trudeau is turning out to be. Stand in front of the cameras and push the agenda his big business advisors tell him to. Of course those of us who have lived through many elections know that Liberal/Tory same old story is always the case no matter what Red Book lies the Liberals chose to sell to voters.

Trudeau has a nicer smile and a better demeanour than Harper but on all the major files he has all the same old policies as his Conservative predecessors because they both work for the same elite.

The nice thing is that we seem to be in agreement with each other on what matters. One party on the left. And I don't even have a preference on which party it comes to be called. What is important to me is the political position of the party that takes all the marbles.

My very first priority is an antiwar foreign policy. I would give that say 10 points as opposed to economic policy which I would give maybe 3 points. And thereon down. If you're with me on foreign policy being that important and that it requres our country to stop participation in all US led wars of aggression, they we can find some other things that are common to our agendas.

As for who the leader will be of our party? Right now Mulcair doesn't look all that promising. LOL

But I don't know if Trudeau could do it either. We'll have to wait and see if he gathers a huge majority that oppose the Conservative rats for the next election. I'm thinking that he will as most people will just stop seeing the humour in the personality attacks on him. After all, it was just Conservative 'rat' attacks to begin with anyway. NDP'ers will be able to rise above that given a little time. At least once their brains kick in and catch up with their gum wagging.

monty1

deleted

monty1

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one. And your average voter is too stupid to vote based on their best self interests. They've all drank the corporate kool aid. I highly doubt that back in 1966,'balanced budgets' and 'corporate tax breaks' were on the Canadian voter radar. It's no coincidence that this fact had Canadians living a far better quality of life back when.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

monty1

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sort of like not wanting a blue car but wanting an indigo car. Okay,got it.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left.

It would be nice if we went back to having one. The idea that the Liberal's at any level in Canada are left wing is a flat out lie. Christy Clark is exactly the same type of leader as Trudeau is turning out to be. Stand in front of the cameras and push the agenda his big business advisors tell him to. Of course those of us who have lived through many elections know that Liberal/Tory same old story is always the case no matter what Red Book lies the Liberals chose to sell to voters.

Trudeau has a nicer smile and a better demeanour than Harper but on all the major files he has all the same old policies as his Conservative predecessors because they both work for the same elite.

The nice thing is that we seem to be in agreement with each other on what matters. One party on the left. And I don't even have a preference on which party it comes to be called. What is important to me is the political position of the party that takes all the marbles.

My very first priority is an antiwar foreign policy. I would give that say 10 points as opposed to economic policy which I would give maybe 3 points. And thereon down. If you're with me on foreign policy being that important and that it requres our country to stop participation in all US led wars of aggression, they we can find some other things that are common to our agendas.

As for who the leader will be of our party? Right now Mulcair doesn't look all that promising. LOL

But I don't know if Trudeau could do it either. We'll have to wait and see if he gathers a huge majority that oppose the Conservative rats for the next election. I'm thinking that he will as most people will just stop seeing the humour in the personality attacks on him. After all, it was just Conservative 'rat' attacks to begin with anyway. NDP'ers will be able to rise above that given a little time. At least once their brains kick in and catch up with their gum wagging.

Your constant insulting of NDP MPs in this manner is not likely to gain you anything here. Your call for an effective Liberal-NDP merger is completely out-to-lunch here and a non-starter. Your suggestion that the Liberals are left and that the NDP as an opposition party should consider common cause with them and not criticize is just garbage.

No-- you have practically no agreement here on what matters as you define the Liberals as appropriate to swallow the NDP and be the so-called left party. They are not considered left here by anybody. Even the Liebrals here consider themselves centre not left and have said so.

If you really like a two party system where one is called left and the other extreme right and no party is really left then why not head south. Your prefered alignment exists there. And we do not want or need it here.

Your rather arrogant condescending introduction to this site has been noted. There is a reason that it is considered good netiquette to read a lot longer before posting -- especially the kind of aggressive and insulting posts you have been making.

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left.

It would be nice if we went back to having one. The idea that the Liberal's at any level in Canada are left wing is a flat out lie. Christy Clark is exactly the same type of leader as Trudeau is turning out to be. Stand in front of the cameras and push the agenda his big business advisors tell him to. Of course those of us who have lived through many elections know that Liberal/Tory same old story is always the case no matter what Red Book lies the Liberals chose to sell to voters.

Trudeau has a nicer smile and a better demeanour than Harper but on all the major files he has all the same old policies as his Conservative predecessors because they both work for the same elite.

The nice thing is that we seem to be in agreement with each other on what matters. One party on the left. And I don't even have a preference on which party it comes to be called. What is important to me is the political position of the party that takes all the marbles.

My very first priority is an antiwar foreign policy. I would give that say 10 points as opposed to economic policy which I would give maybe 3 points. And thereon down. If you're with me on foreign policy being that important and that it requres our country to stop participation in all US led wars of aggression, they we can find some other things that are common to our agendas.

As for who the leader will be of our party? Right now Mulcair doesn't look all that promising. LOL

But I don't know if Trudeau could do it either. We'll have to wait and see if he gathers a huge majority that oppose the Conservative rats for the next election. I'm thinking that he will as most people will just stop seeing the humour in the personality attacks on him. After all, it was just Conservative 'rat' attacks to begin with anyway. NDP'ers will be able to rise above that given a little time. At least once their brains kick in and catch up with their gum wagging.

Your constant insulting of NDP MPs in this manner is not likely to gain you anything here. Your call for an effective Liberal-NDP merger is completely out-to-lunch here and a non-starter. Your suggestion that the Liberals are left and that the NDP as an opposition party should consider common cause with them and not criticize is just garbage.

No-- you have practically no agreement here on what matters as you define the Liberals as appropriate to swallow the NDP and be the so-called left party. They are not considered left here by anybody. Even the Liebrals here consider themselves centre not left and have said so.

If you really like a two party system where one is called left and the other extreme right and no party is really left then why not head south. Your prefered alignment exists there. And we do not want or need it here.

Your rather arrogant condescending introduction to this site has been noted. There is a reason that it is considered good netiquette to read a lot longer before posting -- especially the kind of aggressive and insulting posts you have been making.

Maybe neither Trudeau or Mulcair would become the leader of the party on the left? I can imagine that party being slightly further left than the Liberals but not quite what the NDP currently represents. And for certain, the NDP would have to completely drop the hand licking of Conservative hands like little puppies if they wanted to be taken seriously. Did you ask NDPP yet on how they did that? 

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

Alan hasn't been rude, and that is a bit arrogant. You will find that people here are very well informed on progressive issues and terms and quite supportive of extremism.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

Alan hasn't been rude, and that is a bit arrogant. You will find that people here are very well informed on progressive issues and terms and quite supportive of extremism.

With all due respects, the string of question marks was damn rude. I've played the forum game for a very long time Pondering. And also fwiw, I'm not here on a mission of making friends as you may very well be. And I unserstand the wisdom in doing that.

Anyway, I'm sorry for overreacting Alan. Let's see how that works for a start?

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I don't agree there is room for two parties on the left.

It would be nice if we went back to having one. The idea that the Liberal's at any level in Canada are left wing is a flat out lie. Christy Clark is exactly the same type of leader as Trudeau is turning out to be. Stand in front of the cameras and push the agenda his big business advisors tell him to. Of course those of us who have lived through many elections know that Liberal/Tory same old story is always the case no matter what Red Book lies the Liberals chose to sell to voters.

Trudeau has a nicer smile and a better demeanour than Harper but on all the major files he has all the same old policies as his Conservative predecessors because they both work for the same elite.

The nice thing is that we seem to be in agreement with each other on what matters. One party on the left. And I don't even have a preference on which party it comes to be called. What is important to me is the political position of the party that takes all the marbles.

My very first priority is an antiwar foreign policy. I would give that say 10 points as opposed to economic policy which I would give maybe 3 points. And thereon down. If you're with me on foreign policy being that important and that it requres our country to stop participation in all US led wars of aggression, they we can find some other things that are common to our agendas.

As for who the leader will be of our party? Right now Mulcair doesn't look all that promising. LOL

But I don't know if Trudeau could do it either. We'll have to wait and see if he gathers a huge majority that oppose the Conservative rats for the next election. I'm thinking that he will as most people will just stop seeing the humour in the personality attacks on him. After all, it was just Conservative 'rat' attacks to begin with anyway. NDP'ers will be able to rise above that given a little time. At least once their brains kick in and catch up with their gum wagging.

Your constant insulting of NDP MPs in this manner is not likely to gain you anything here. Your call for an effective Liberal-NDP merger is completely out-to-lunch here and a non-starter. Your suggestion that the Liberals are left and that the NDP as an opposition party should consider common cause with them and not criticize is just garbage.

No-- you have practically no agreement here on what matters as you define the Liberals as appropriate to swallow the NDP and be the so-called left party. They are not considered left here by anybody. Even the Liebrals here consider themselves centre not left and have said so.

If you really like a two party system where one is called left and the other extreme right and no party is really left then why not head south. Your prefered alignment exists there. And we do not want or need it here.

Your rather arrogant condescending introduction to this site has been noted. There is a reason that it is considered good netiquette to read a lot longer before posting -- especially the kind of aggressive and insulting posts you have been making.

Maybe neither Trudeau or Mulcair would become the leader of the party on the left? I can imagine that party being slightly further left than the Liberals but not quite what the NDP currently represents. And for certain, the NDP would have to completely drop the hand licking of Conservative hands like little puppies if they wanted to be taken seriously. Did you ask NDPP yet on how they did that? 

Let me rephrase for you since you are having such an incredibly hard time of this. When you apporach NDP or left of Liberal types asking them to join your Liberal party or slightly left party that includes all the Liberal version of Canadian capitalists and you are including insults about hand or boot licking by those to the left of the Liberals, you should be expecting to be told to Fuck yourself. Is this clear enough?

Now stuff your Liberal propaganda into a pro Liberal Trudeau arse kissing site rather than here. We don't need your advice.

We do not need or want some grand anti Conservative party where the alternative to capitalist vision is absorbed into it.

Also screw your ignorant and uninformed attempts to get people to the side of your propaganda campaigns. If you had been here longer than five minutes you would know that NDDP is no fan of the Liberal party any more than any NDP supporters here. NDDP can speak for himself but he sure has never advocated support for any mergers. He does not like the NDP as it is not different enough.

You clearly are not getting the message -- you have not spent enough time here to be doing the kinds of politicing here you are trying to do. A couple Liberals might at times be happy with you and that is about it. Those same Liberals are not respected much on this board due to troll-like activity.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

Alan hasn't been rude, and that is a bit arrogant. You will find that people here are very well informed on progressive issues and terms and quite supportive of extremism.

With all due respects, the string of question marks was damn rude. I've played the forum game for a very long time Pondering. And also fwiw, I'm not here on a mission of making friends as you may very well be. And I unserstand the wisdom in doing that.

Anyway, I'm sorry for overreacting Alan. Let's see how that works for a start?

If you think that was rude, you should read your own posts. From a pretty early start I understood there was no point in trying to be polite with you.

monty1

Sean please! We're on the same side politically but it's going to take some time for us to get there. Be patient. 

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean please! We're on the same side politically but it's going to take some time for us to get there. Be patient. 

No, we are not on the same side. Not at all.

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Sean please! We're on the same side politically but it's going to take some time for us to get there. Be patient. 

No, we are not on the same side. Not at all.

Yes we are but if you want to be contrary about it then I can continue to play you like a finetuned violin. Your choice young man! I also note that you are beginning to alienate some of the people who are most in agreement with your NDP agenda. You don't need Liberals to fight, everybody will work for an enemy.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 Even the Liebrals here consider themselves centre not left and have said so.

I won't quibble with most of what you said here except I don't know of anyone here who considers themselves in the centre. The Liberal party as a whole is centrist.

Monty, you won't find anyone here including those Sean refers to as Liberals who will agree with your insults of NDP members and supporters although sadly some would agree if you applied it to Liberals.

Maybe that is where you got the idea that it is okay to treat people the way you do but you are mistaken if you think that it goes both ways or that if it did go both ways it would improve the situation.

 

Pondering

I won't be interacting with you any more Monty. I hope others come to the same decision.

P.S. Sean may have some triggers so you might get a rise out of him on some issues but nobody plays him like a fine-tuned violin.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Sean please! We're on the same side politically but it's going to take some time for us to get there. Be patient. 

No, we are not on the same side. Not at all.

Yes we are but if you want to be contrary about it then I can continue to play you like a finetuned violin. Your choice young man! I also note that you are beginning to alienate some of the people who are most in agreement with your NDP agenda. You don't need Liberals to fight, everybody will work for an enemy.

Screw yourself. This bullshit patronizing has got to stop.

And I have known some of these poeple here for many years --

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I won't be interacting with you any more Monty. I hope others come to the same decision.

P.S. Sean may have some triggers so you might get a rise out of him on some issues but nobody plays him like a fine-tuned violin.

Cross posted with you Pondering. Well thank you and your advice is clearly correct here.

We have huge differences but once in a while we agree.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

I won't be interacting with you any more Monty. I hope others come to the same decision.

P.S. Sean may have some triggers so you might get a rise out of him on some issues but nobody plays him like a fine-tuned violin.

No problem Pondering. If you choose to overlook the bad behavour of both Sean and quizzical that brought us to this then so be it. I will of course continue to interact with everybody on this forum regardless of their views and their level of poor behaviour.

As for Sean and quizcical, if they want more then they had better let er rip! We'll see.

wage zombie

monty1 wrote:

And for certain, the NDP would have to completely drop the hand licking of Conservative hands like little puppies if they wanted to be taken seriously. Did you ask NDPP yet on how they did that? 

You're full of shit.  Get lost.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

Alan hasn't been rude, and that is a bit arrogant. You will find that people here are very well informed on progressive issues and terms and quite supportive of extremism.

With all due respects, the string of question marks was damn rude. I've played the forum game for a very long time Pondering. And also fwiw, I'm not here on a mission of making friends as you may very well be. And I unserstand the wisdom in doing that.

Anyway, I'm sorry for overreacting Alan. Let's see how that works for a start?

Boy,is that some grade 'A' condescending bullshit. Know when to pick your battles,mate. You're rubbing people the wrong way.

monty1

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

monty1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Canada needs a GroenLinks party. As much as people like to label parties by a left/right  spectrum,the fact of the matter is that Canada does not have a bonafide left wing option.

Why? Because there's no money to be had with one.

Nobody wants a leftwing party, we want a left party. 

????????????????????????????

I'm willing to help you understand if you remain polite and show you want help. Left wing, by definition is not what anybody wants, Nobody defines their agenda as extremist on one side or the other. So no matter what left wing  means to you, you don't use the term except in a political debate where you want to paint your opponents views as extremist and then inferring those views to be unacceptable. 

For example, I would use the term, "right wing" to describe the Conservative party because I believe they are extremists and not acceptable for Canada.

Alan hasn't been rude, and that is a bit arrogant. You will find that people here are very well informed on progressive issues and terms and quite supportive of extremism.

With all due respects, the string of question marks was damn rude. I've played the forum game for a very long time Pondering. And also fwiw, I'm not here on a mission of making friends as you may very well be. And I unserstand the wisdom in doing that.

Anyway, I'm sorry for overreacting Alan. Let's see how that works for a start?

Boy,is that some grade 'A' condescending bullshit. Know when to pick your battles,mate. You're rubbing people the wrong way.

I said I was sorry Alan but that didn't matter did it Alan. Why did I suspect that? 

wage zombie

monty1 wrote:

I said I was sorry Alan but that didn't matter did it Alan. Why did I suspect that? 

You suspected it because you are a clear fraud.

Sean in Ottawa

Interesting. There have been some serious feuds and ill-will among people here. We fight hard and disagree but Monty is the first in a long time that I would prefer to see simply gone. People who have seen me clash with a few people over the years would know that I have never said that about anybody here today -- including Pondering who I have asked to dial back but never have I asked that she be banned. But this is a case for banning.

The sexist and ageist language like "young man" or do x "like a man" is just a part of it but that alone is enough. He harangues people by repeating that we are on the same side -- even as he advocates positions that are clearly not what the person agrees to.

He clearly does not have any desire to fit in to this community but rather bulldoze in. If there is anyone who sees a benefit in his contribution I would be curious to know. As controversial is as some people may be -- there are people who appreciate their contributions. I can't think of anyone thinking that about Monty given his behaviour here over the last while -- correct me if I am wrong.

 

jjuares

alan smithee wrote:

Sort of like not wanting a blue car but wanting an indigo car. Okay,got it.


Great post!

quizzical

i want a social justice humanist party not a corporatist party

for me the left  right dynamics don't take part in my normal social intereactions with people. only here do i use them so we can all talk on the same page.

i'm re-thinking this perception as it doesn't seem to be working what with the Liberals pretending they're left and co-opting it. they're no where near being involved in social justice on a humanist perspective no matter how much they pretend.....

quizzical

jjuares wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Sort of like not wanting a blue car but wanting an indigo car. Okay,got it.

Great post!

indigo is its own colour. it's even got its own spot on a rainbow.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i want a social justice humanist party not a corporatist party

for me the left  right dynamics don't take part in my normal social intereactions with people. only here do i use them so we can all talk on the same page.

i'm re-thinking this perception as it doesn't seem to be working what with the Liberals pretending they're left and co-opting it. they're no where near being involved in social justice on a humanist perspective no matter how much they pretend.....

Agreed -- well said.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

jjuares wrote:
alan smithee wrote:
Sort of like not wanting a blue car but wanting an indigo car. Okay,got it.

Great post!

indigo is its own colour. it's even got its own spot on a rainbow.

Indeed.

Indigo. More than a bookstore when Blue is just not enough.

Sad music is the blues. Music to slash your wrists by is Indigo.

(Actually it is what you might even think of as a warmer blue -- as it has magenta in it plus black although there are many shades)

Seriously, as a designer, it is a beautiful colour range.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I guess indigo is blue wing. It's extreme. Nobody wants it or would vote for it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
quizzical

nothing extreme about indigo. i think people should strive to reach indigo for their personal light vibrational frequency. 

it's a colour midway between blue and purple and is as much its own colour as orange. the midway point between red and yellow.

we don't call orange red or yellow. we call it orange.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What do you get when you mix a Red with a yellow coward? The NDP orange.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

quizzical wrote:

nothing extreme about indigo. i think people should strive to reach indigo for their personal light vibrational frequency. 

 

The joke flew over your head.

quizzical

think so? maybe you didn't get my aura joke.......

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Interesting. There have been some serious feuds and ill-will among people here. We fight hard and disagree but Monty is the first in a long time that I would prefer to see simply gone. People who have seen me clash with a few people over the years would know that I have never said that about anybody here today -- including Pondering who I have asked to dial back but never have I asked that she be banned. But this is a case for banning.

The sexist and ageist language like "young man" or do x "like a man" is just a part of it but that alone is enough. He harangues people by repeating that we are on the same side -- even as he advocates positions that are clearly not what the person agrees to.

He clearly does not have any desire to fit in to this community but rather bulldoze in. If there is anyone who sees a benefit in his contribution I would be curious to know. As controversial is as some people may be -- there are people who appreciate their contributions. I can't think of anyone thinking that about Monty given his behaviour here over the last while -- correct me if I am wrong.

Is this your campaign to get me banned from the forum Sean? I'll note the personal attacks on me from here on in and you should do the same for me. Otherwise, let's not clutter up the board with off-topic rants. 

monty1

quizzical wrote:

i want a social justice humanist party not a corporatist party

for me the left  right dynamics don't take part in my normal social intereactions with people. only here do i use them so we can all talk on the same page.

i'm re-thinking this perception as it doesn't seem to be working what with the Liberals pretending they're left and co-opting it. they're no where near being involved in social justice on a humanist perspective no matter how much they pretend.....

Maybe you could think of it as Conservative against anti-Conseervatives. It's just a matter of the Liberals owning the latter at the moment. But I'm impressed with your thoughts after that performance you put on with Sean and the troll dolls. Even though I don't agree that the Liberals aren't the left. In any case, maybe it doesn't matter anymore if there is a left or not. As long as we push back the Conservatives and their creeping rot together. Because we probably can't do it divided.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Liberal Tory same old story. A neo-con with a smile like Trudeau or Clark is as dangerous to the common good as a mean and nasty asshole like Harper.

Brachina

 You paint the Tories as a characture of themselves. I doubt they see themselves as rot. They're no more rot then the Liberals, they just have they're own beliefs about what is most helpful and best for people. They're often wrong and those choices often get people hurt, but some times so do the choices made on the left, even ones with the best intentions. Hatred for ones enemies leads to blindness and innocent people can get hurt.

 The Tories aren't evil, the Liberals aren't evil (they do have a hard time telling the truth), the NDP isn't evil, the Greens aren't evil. They all have they're internal narrative, all believe they're the good guys. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Politicians who support the neo-conservative globalization project (our new global feudalism) are doing evil. I am sure they all think they are nice people. Its the deeds of people I judge not their words. The Conservative deeds make them evil doers. The Liberals on all the big files are doing the same thing as the neo-cons they replaced. At this point it remains to be seen how evil their actions become after all its only been a few months and to early to make a complete analysis of their complicity in the neo-feudal project that the Cons started.

quizzical

the Liberals "bootlicked" the Conservatives for the last 10 years.

their complicity has been right there for all to see. just go look at Hansard for voting in alignment with the Conservatives and see.

Debater

Brachina wrote:

 The Tories aren't evil, the Liberals aren't evil (they do have a hard time telling the truth), the NDP isn't evil, the Greens aren't evil. They all have they're internal narrative, all believe they're the good guys. 

True.

Chantal Hébert made this point on At Issue and in her columns several months ago.  She said Stephen Harper & the Conservatives are not evil and that progressive voters need to stop geting carried away.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Interesting. There have been some serious feuds and ill-will among people here. We fight hard and disagree but Monty is the first in a long time that I would prefer to see simply gone. People who have seen me clash with a few people over the years would know that I have never said that about anybody here today -- including Pondering who I have asked to dial back but never have I asked that she be banned. But this is a case for banning.

The sexist and ageist language like "young man" or do x "like a man" is just a part of it but that alone is enough. He harangues people by repeating that we are on the same side -- even as he advocates positions that are clearly not what the person agrees to.

He clearly does not have any desire to fit in to this community but rather bulldoze in. If there is anyone who sees a benefit in his contribution I would be curious to know. As controversial is as some people may be -- there are people who appreciate their contributions. I can't think of anyone thinking that about Monty given his behaviour here over the last while -- correct me if I am wrong.

Is this your campaign to get me banned from the forum Sean? I'll note the personal attacks on me from here on in and you should do the same for me. Otherwise, let's not clutter up the board with off-topic rants. 

deleted - this shit not worth responding to

quizzical

who said anything about evil other than some here overstepping people's words and creating false structures?

you can't impart social justice knowlege to the profoundly narcissistic like those who control the Liberal and Conservative parties.

as for those who succumb to the narcissistic controllers propaganda you can only feel grumpy at them most times. and pity them at others.

 

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 The Tories aren't evil, the Liberals aren't evil (they do have a hard time telling the truth), the NDP isn't evil, the Greens aren't evil. They all have they're internal narrative, all believe they're the good guys. 

True.

Chantal Hébert made this point on At Issue and in her columns several months ago.  She said Stephen Harper & the Conservatives are not evil and that progressive voters need to stop geting carried away.

As a group perhaps not but I do believe that right wing ideology attracts pyschopaths most of whom apparently don't go around killing people and it is probably on a continuum. Harper had a very telling moment when he referred to Alan's death. With a tear in his eye he said something to the effect that we all feel shock and horror but we can't allow that to affect our decision-making. I found it bizarre but apparently it didn't strike anyone else as odd.

Evil may not be the right word, and it does not apply to Conservatives in general, but there is certainly something evil about neoliberalism.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 The Tories aren't evil, the Liberals aren't evil (they do have a hard time telling the truth), the NDP isn't evil, the Greens aren't evil. They all have they're internal narrative, all believe they're the good guys. 

True.

Chantal Hébert made this point on At Issue and in her columns several months ago.  She said Stephen Harper & the Conservatives are not evil and that progressive voters need to stop geting carried away.

As a group perhaps not but I do believe that right wing ideology attracts pyschopaths most of whom apparently don't go around killing people and it is probably on a continuum. Harper had a very telling moment when he referred to Alan's death. With a tear in his eye he said something to the effect that we all feel shock and horror but we can't allow that to affect our decision-making. I found it bizarre but apparently it didn't strike anyone else as odd.

Evil may not be the right word, and it does not apply to Conservatives in general, but there is certainly something evil about neoliberalism.

I don't like words like evil. The concept has too many supernatural and religious connotations.

I also accept that a lot of people who support other ideologies are sincere in that they think they are best for what they define as society or their country.

I prefer concepts like injustice, inequity, undemocratic, warped priorities, even selfish, among others when it comes to discussions about the Conservatives. They define society in non-inclusive ways and limit interests to a priveleged few rather than the entire community. But words like evil are seldom going to move anyone other than to stop listening. That said we can vent and use such words if in anger they make us feelbetter but we should not consider them part of the vocabulary of change or conversion of ideas.

Pages