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

176 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

i agree Sean don't even use the word evil when thinking let alone talking about other people.

only time i use it is when i wanna bug fundamentalists who are talking crazy shit. ;) they hate secular people throwing it back at them.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Right wingers,for the most part,are sociopaths at worse and selfish pricks at best. 'Evil' is too biblical. Let's just say that they are not good people and espouse the very worst of humanity.

Pondering

I changed my mind about not responding.

monty1 wrote:

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.

If I am here to make friends then I am a miserable failure. I'm here for a lot of reasons but one that is central is that I wish I knew how to connect activists to the average disaffected voter that pays attention to politics for a few weeks right before the next election, and people that don't even do that much.

I believe the Leap Manifesto is a very good description of where Canada needs to go to achieve our best possible and most rewarding future. I believe we and our descendants are among the luckiest in the world to live in Canada, the most northern point of the North American fortress. We have all the soft and hard resources other countries can only dream of, plenty of wealth for our tiny population. 

I don't believe activists have any clue of how to sell it, not that I have all the answers either, but I wish it was something people here were willing to work on with me.

Normally we are not supposed to accuse posters of being sock puppets or former members but you have dropped hints. When someone suggested you were being very aggressive for someone new you suggested that you are not.

You used the word fuck which is generally not tolerated on message boards. It isn't used here all that often. I may have seen it once or twice in years yet you didn't hesitate to use it casually.

You flung out generalized insults at NDP supporters suggesting they are conservative bootlickers which is ridiculous and obviously intended to offend. Given that you have some familiarity with this board and it is progressive anyone with half a brain would know that NDP supporters would be here and would be offended.

Sean and quizzical are not the only two who have taken offence yet you singled them out and praised NDPP (whom I also admire).

You've been away for a long while or just read very casually once in a while. I know this because otherwise you would have known that I am a woman. That means you were not around for the prostitution debates.

You mentioned having supported the NDP for 55 years and you referred to Sean as young suggesting you are old enough to have gathered some wisdom and yet you entered this site with arrogance and hostility.

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't appear positive.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

I changed my mind about not responding.

monty1 wrote:

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.

If I am here to make friends then I am a miserable failure. I'm here for a lot of reasons but one that is central is that I wish I knew how to connect activists to the average disaffected voter that pays attention to politics for a few weeks right before the next election, and people that don't even do that much.

I believe the Leap Manifesto is a very good description of where Canada needs to go to achieve our best possible and most rewarding future. I believe we and our descendants are among the luckiest in the world to live in Canada, the most northern point of the North American fortress. We have all the soft and hard resources other countries can only dream of, plenty of wealth for our tiny population. 

I don't believe activists have any clue of how to sell it, not that I have all the answers either, but I wish it was something people here were willing to work on with me.

Normally we are not supposed to accuse posters of being sock puppets or former members but you have dropped hints. When someone suggested you were being very aggressive for someone new you suggested that you are not.

You used the word fuck which is generally not tolerated on message boards. It isn't used here all that often. I may have seen it once or twice in years yet you didn't hesitate to use it casually.

You flung out generalized insults at NDP supporters suggesting they are conservative bootlickers which is ridiculous and obviously intended to offend. Given that you have some familiarity with this board and it is progressive anyone with half a brain would know that NDP supporters would be here and would be offended.

Sean and quizzical are not the only two who have taken offence yet you singled them out and praised NDPP (whom I also admire).

You've been away for a long while or just read very casually once in a while. I know this because otherwise you would have known that I am a woman. That means you were not around for the prostitution debates.

You mentioned having supported the NDP for 55 years and you referred to Sean as young suggesting you are old enough to have gathered some wisdom and yet you entered this site with arrogance and hostility.

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't appear positive.

Thank you Pondering. Well put Funny it takes a full Monty to show what we can agree on. Perhaps we can work on that.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i agree Sean don't even use the word evil when thinking let alone talking about other people.

only time i use it is when i wanna bug fundamentalists who are talking crazy shit. ;) they hate secular people throwing it back at them.

Smile

mark_alfred

I agree with Brachina's post (#93).  I feel generally that right wingers (Cons, Libs) emphasize individual liberty a tad more than left wingers do, while left wingers emphasize communal responsibility a tad more than right wingers do.  Not evil, just a different perspective.  Both perspectives are valuable, but I tend to lean toward communal responsibility (IE, egalitarianism) a bit more.

Sean in Ottawa

Wow I forgot about the Indigo Girls -- not sure why. I have a number of their CDs that I have not played in ages. I am now listening to them (actually on youtube). Brings back memories. I always liked their music.

They are, it seems, both very fine people and are political and social activists. Great music from great people.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thank you Pondering. Well put Funny it takes a full Monty to show what we can agree on. Perhaps we can work on that.

LOL, and thank-you. I hope that we can. I would like to say that I'm going to be less exasperating but we have to be realistic and accept that it's unlikely. I do believe that everyone here does want social justice for everyone. It is our passion for that outcome and frustration at how slow progress is that drives the anger.

I appreciated Monty's early support of my post but in hindsight I think he saw conflict between us and between myself and quizzical and thought I might be an ally against you both. You and quizzical have very little in common so it even crossed my mind that he chose you both because I have clashed with you and quiz has made some hostile comments.

He doesn't know my politics or he would know that I am against any sort of merger between the NDP and the Liberals.

As I said, no idea what his agenda is but so far the signs are not good. I don't like being used or taken for a fool.

Debater

Sean, did you respond to any of the points I made in my response to your thesis for this thread?

I wrote out a list of several factors that I think political scientists and historians would found you to have overlooked.  (eg about the historic nature of the Trudeau Liberal win last October, and why there was a lot more to it than just winning over ABC voters in an election).

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thank you Pondering. Well put Funny it takes a full Monty to show what we can agree on. Perhaps we can work on that.

LOL, and thank-you. I hope that we can. I would like to say that I'm going to be less exasperating but we have to be realistic and accept that it's unlikely. I do believe that everyone here does want social justice for everyone. It is our passion for that outcome and frustration at how slow progress is that drives the anger.

I appreciated Monty's early support of my post but in hindsight I think he saw conflict between us and between myself and quizzical and thought I might be an ally against you both. You and quizzical have very little in common so it even crossed my mind that he chose you both because I have clashed with you and quiz has made some hostile comments.

He doesn't know my politics or he would know that I am against any sort of merger between the NDP and the Liberals.

As I said, no idea what his agenda is but so far the signs are not good. I don't like being used or taken for a fool.

Really? I thought I had a lot in common with Quizzical. Agree with most of the rest.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

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.

They aren't stupid they are politically uninformed because they have developed their knowledge in different areas. This disrespectful attitude and air of superiority undermines progress.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Really? I thought I had a lot in common with Quizzical. Agree with most of the rest.

How interesting, I think quizzical will be flattered. While you may hold similar positions you are far better informed, more of an intellectual, driven by a desire for social justice because you believe it is the most successful approach to building a better healthier society for all. You are fueled by information coupled with compassion.

Quizzical is also driven by a desire for social justice but she is fueled by anger at the deep injustice visited upon indigenous peoples and that outrage encompasses anyone she sees as being exploited or neglected as though they are sub-human.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

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.

They aren't stupid they are politically uninformed because they have developed their knowledge in different areas. This disrespectful attitude and air of superiority undermines progress.

 

Stupid might be too strong. Incredibly ill informed and ignorant would probably be more accurate. It's not  'superiority' or 'disrespectful' , it's a fact.

And when you move to American politics,'stupid' is an understatement. Sorry.

Debater

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.


I agree with most of this. Trudeau's personality and name was a huge factor in their win. I quite honestly find him smug and arrogant don't like him on a personal and political level. However, I recognize that at this point I am in a distinct minourity. That ad based upon the big rally was one of the finest " bandwagon ads" I have ever seen. And it was made possible by the enthusiasm of the Liberal base for Trudeau. He is very much like Reagan, shallow and projecting optimism. His cliches and boosterism will help him very much in the next election if the economy is doing well. However, if the economy is sputtering his sunny ways will, like Reagan be seen to be out of touch and will be anything but an asset then.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

I changed my mind about not responding.

monty1 wrote:

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.

If I am here to make friends then I am a miserable failure. I'm here for a lot of reasons but one that is central is that I wish I knew how to connect activists to the average disaffected voter that pays attention to politics for a few weeks right before the next election, and people that don't even do that much.

I believe the Leap Manifesto is a very good description of where Canada needs to go to achieve our best possible and most rewarding future. I believe we and our descendants are among the luckiest in the world to live in Canada, the most northern point of the North American fortress. We have all the soft and hard resources other countries can only dream of, plenty of wealth for our tiny population. 

I don't believe activists have any clue of how to sell it, not that I have all the answers either, but I wish it was something people here were willing to work on with me.

Normally we are not supposed to accuse posters of being sock puppets or former members but you have dropped hints. When someone suggested you were being very aggressive for someone new you suggested that you are not.

I'm new here on this forum if the forum hasn't changed it's name. When I said 'I'm not" it meant that I don't consider myself very aggressive. You'll have to go back and look at how the problems evolved with Sean, but really, why bother.

Quote:
You used the word fuck which is generally not tolerated on message boards. It isn't used here all that often. I may have seen it once or twice in years yet you didn't hesitate to use it casually.

I used the word because I saw several examples of it's use and so assumed that it was commonly used on this board. 

Quote:
You flung out generalized insults at NDP supporters suggesting they are conservative bootlickers which is ridiculous and obviously intended to offend. Given that you have some familiarity with this board and it is progressive anyone with half a brain would know that NDP supporters would be here and would be offended.

There's been a lot more flung at Trudeau and Liberal but I don't care to argue that. I think the problem is that there are a lot more NDP'ers on this board than there are Liberals. 

Quote:
Sean and quizzical are not the only two who have taken offence yet you singled them out and praised NDPP (whom I also admire).

You've been away for a long while or just read very casually once in a while. I know this because otherwise you would have known that I am a woman. That means you were not around for the prostitution debates./quote]

I would know you are a woman how? If I had been on this board before? No, I wasn't around any prostitution debates. 

Quote:
You mentioned having supported the NDP for 55 years and you referred to Sean as young suggesting you are old enough to have gathered some wisdom and yet you entered this site with arrogance and hostility.

You may have noticed I entered this board as a NDP voter who now supports Trudeau (the anti-Harper) and I got a ton of flak for my position. That generated my hostility and arrogance against petty posters who come off as teenagers when they started posting pictures of little toy people who are supposed to represent 'trolls'.

Quote:
I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't appear positive.

It's no mystery. First and foremost, I'm antiwar. And the rest will sort itsefl out as long as we can keep the Conservatives away.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Thank you Pondering. Well put Funny it takes a full Monty to show what we can agree on. Perhaps we can work on that.

LOL, and thank-you. I hope that we can. I would like to say that I'm going to be less exasperating but we have to be realistic and accept that it's unlikely. I do believe that everyone here does want social justice for everyone. It is our passion for that outcome and frustration at how slow progress is that drives the anger.

I appreciated Monty's early support of my post but in hindsight I think he saw conflict between us and between myself and quizzical and thought I might be an ally against you both. You and quizzical have very little in common so it even crossed my mind that he chose you both because I have clashed with you and quiz has made some hostile comments.

He doesn't know my politics or he would know that I am against any sort of merger between the NDP and the Liberals.

As I said, no idea what his agenda is but so far the signs are not good. I don't like being used or taken for a fool.

I saw a lot of intelligence in your comments, and I got that you were a lefty like me. But for me, a lot of that initial sparkle is gone from your persona. I'm hoping that I'll see it re-emerge. My dislike of Sean and quizzical had nothing to do with you, or vice versa. I see nothing but kneejerk ignorance of more nuanced politics in them. I think I'll pretty well ignore them and just return fire at them when they get over the top.

monty1

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.

I agree with most of this. Trudeau's personality and name was a huge factor in their win. I quite honestly find him smug and arrogant don't like him on a personal and political level. However, I recognize that at this point I am in a distinct minourity. That ad based upon the big rally was one of the finest " bandwagon ads" I have ever seen. And it was made possible by the enthusiasm of the Liberal base for Trudeau. He is very much like Reagan, shallow and projecting optimism. His cliches and boosterism will help him very much in the next election if the economy is doing well. However, if the economy is sputtering his sunny ways will, like Reagan be seen to be out of touch and will be anything but an asset then.

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.

I agree with most of this. Trudeau's personality and name was a huge factor in their win. I quite honestly find him smug and arrogant don't like him on a personal and political level. However, I recognize that at this point I am in a distinct minourity. That ad based upon the big rally was one of the finest " bandwagon ads" I have ever seen. And it was made possible by the enthusiasm of the Liberal base for Trudeau. He is very much like Reagan, shallow and projecting optimism. His cliches and boosterism will help him very much in the next election if the economy is doing well. However, if the economy is sputtering his sunny ways will, like Reagan be seen to be out of touch and will be anything but an asset then.

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.


Now I must admit I have only read a couple of your posts when you first joined this site. Because I was unable to find any quality in any of your posts I stopped reading any of your contributions. However, I feel somewhat obligated to read and respond to your post because it appears to be an attempt by you to inject yourself into my conversation with another poster. So, here goes. Yes, I know you said that the NDP were licking the Conservative's boots. I also notice that you were effectively called out on that. At that point I had empathy for you because you must have felt quite bad for embarassing yourself for such a transparently foolish remark. But I guess not. A more self reflective individual would have not reminded people of this silly comment. As for the " content" of your post, you do realize that I was replying to a post about Trudeau and not the Liberal Party's positions? That is why I did not mention it. But I don't want to be too critical as the problem may lie in your inability to comprehend what you have read. Finally, I gave an opinion of Trudeau's personality and its role in the Liberal win. I also acknowledged that mine was a minority position. You do realize that others are entitled to their opinion. Now, I would rather you not interact with me. To be blunt I find your posts to be a strange mixture of absurdities and pure unadulterated goofiness.

Sean in Ottawa

monty1 wrote:

 My dislike of Sean and quizzical had nothing to do with you, or vice versa. I see nothing but kneejerk ignorance of more nuanced politics in them. I think I'll pretty well ignore them and just return fire at them when they get over the top.

Can you stop acting like an asshole? This would reduce the chance that you actually get called one.

Sure I am crossing a line here but you have been carrying on like this almost since your first post. You came on this board seemingly intent to carry on a war with just about everyone. You have talked down to people even called me young man etc. You don't even know my age or experience.

You coming saying that people who have been writing here more than a decade are "ignorant of naunced politics" makes you look like an ass. This from the person who decides that we are all on the same team just becuase we do not like the Conservatives. You are the one that lacks a nuanced understanding -- at the very least of this site and the community here if not politics in general.

We are objectionable to you becuase you came here and picked fights and wrote obnoxious things from the start.

bswalks

monty1 wrote:

[

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.

No I would say the Liberals are showing exactly why NDP supporters dislike them.
They voted for the TPP this week even if they haven't passed it. They will, quietly though.

They haven't moved one iota on C-51.

C-51 is built to stop protest and reaction against things such as the TPP. 

The fact that they don't take peoples concerns seriously and could care less about reaction is a measure of Trudeaus arrogance.

monty1

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.

I agree with most of this. Trudeau's personality and name was a huge factor in their win. I quite honestly find him smug and arrogant don't like him on a personal and political level. However, I recognize that at this point I am in a distinct minourity. That ad based upon the big rally was one of the finest " bandwagon ads" I have ever seen. And it was made possible by the enthusiasm of the Liberal base for Trudeau. He is very much like Reagan, shallow and projecting optimism. His cliches and boosterism will help him very much in the next election if the economy is doing well. However, if the economy is sputtering his sunny ways will, like Reagan be seen to be out of touch and will be anything but an asset then.

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.

Now I must admit I have only read a couple of your posts when you first joined this site. Because I was unable to find any quality in any of your posts I stopped reading any of your contributions. However, I feel somewhat obligated to read and respond to your post because it appears to be an attempt by you to inject yourself into my conversation with another poster. So, here goes. Yes, I know you said that the NDP were licking the Conservative's boots. I also notice that you were effectively called out on that. At that point I had empathy for you because you must have felt quite bad for embarassing yourself for such a transparently foolish remark. But I guess not. A more self reflective individual would have not reminded people of this silly comment. As for the " content" of your post, you do realize that I was replying to a post about Trudeau and not the Liberal Party's positions? That is why I did not mention it. But I don't want to be too critical as the problem may lie in your inability to comprehend what you have read. Finally, I gave an opinion of Trudeau's personality and its role in the Liberal win. I also acknowledged that mine was a minority position. You do realize that others are entitled to their opinion. Now, I would rather you not interact with me. To be blunt I find your posts to be a strange mixture of absurdities and pure unadulterated goofiness.

And I repeat for your personal benefit: The NDP licked Consrvative boots to be able to take a stand against the Liberals. And i'll continue to repeat it until you people accept that it's not only me that understood what was happening. Again, I direct you to NDPP's comments that affirmed what I said. So again, ASK NDPP IF IT WAS HAPPENING OR NOT!!

This has something to do with more nuanced politics. It's not a bad thing to admit truths that don't fit your agenda and people like NDPP understand that. It doesn't mean thathe abandons the party, and fwiw, it doesn't mean that I have abandoned the party either. 

monty1

bswalks wrote:

monty1 wrote:

[

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.

No I would say the Liberals are showing exactly why NDP supporters dislike them.
They voted for the TPP this week even if they haven't passed it. They will, quietly though.

They haven't moved one iota on C-51.

C-51 is built to stop protest and reaction against things such as the TPP. 

The fact that they don't take peoples concerns seriously and could care less about reaction is a measure of Trudeaus arrogance.

Well that's politics isn't it. Sometimes you agree with the Liberals and some times you don't. Personally, I would love to find a party platform I could agree on 100% of the time.

And I don't mind you calling Trudeau arrogant to the point at which I will attack you on it. I just disagree with you.

monty1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

monty1 wrote:

 My dislike of Sean and quizzical had nothing to do with you, or vice versa. I see nothing but kneejerk ignorance of more nuanced politics in them. I think I'll pretty well ignore them and just return fire at them when they get over the top.

Can you stop acting like an asshole? This would reduce the chance that you actually get called one.

Sure I am crossing a line here but you have been carrying on like this almost since your first post. You came on this board seemingly intent to carry on a war with just about everyone. You have talked down to people even called me young man etc. You don't even know my age or experience.

You coming saying that people who have been writing here more than a decade are "ignorant of naunced politics" makes you look like an ass. This from the person who decides that we are all on the same team just becuase we do not like the Conservatives. You are the one that lacks a nuanced understanding -- at the very least of this site and the community here if not politics in general.

We are objectionable to you becuase you came here and picked fights and wrote obnoxious things from the start.

Have a lovely day! 

hasta la victoria siempre

Until the final battle! (against the common enemy, the Conservatives)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

And I repeat for your personal benefit: The NDP licked Consrvative boots to be able to take a stand against the Liberals. And i'll continue to repeat it until you people accept that it's not only me that understood what was happening. Again, I direct you to NDPP's comments that affirmed what I said. So again, ASK NDPP IF IT WAS HAPPENING OR NOT!!

This has something to do with more nuanced politics. It's not a bad thing to admit truths that don't fit your agenda and people like NDPP understand that. It doesn't mean thathe abandons the party, and fwiw, it doesn't mean that I have abandoned the party either. 

I highlighted the part that shows that you don't understand anything aobut this board or the people who post here.  NDPP stands for No Difference Party Party.  He abandoned the NDP years ago, if he ever supported it. Certainly in the seven years he has been posting on this site he has never supported the NDP because he sees them as just as bad as either the Liberals or the Tories. So if you say the NDP is like the Conservatives he will agree with you. If you say that the Liberals are doing a good job on any file I would be extremely surprised if he did anything but laugh at the absurdity of that statement.

I don't think you abandoned the NDP because that would by implication mean you at some point supported them. Frankly your posts on this site are all I have to go on and given that data base it appears to be a bald faced lie.

The Tories and Liberals lick the asses of their corporate bosses. Trudeau is so far up the ass of corporate Canada he is soon going to need an oxygen mask. The NDP under Mulcair is a centrist party that is little diferent than the Liberals but that does not make the Liberal party anything other than what it is and always has been.

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
^^ I agree, in that I don't think Trudeau's personality or attributes had much if anything to do with his victory. People wanted to get rid of Harper, and for reasons having more to do with inter-party political dynamics than with charisma, settled upon the Liberals as the safest bet. I suspect Dion or even Ignatieff could have pulled off the same trick in 2015.

This argument goes way too far in the other direction.  You're making the argument that anyone leading the Liberals could have easily won the election last October.

There is no evidence to sustain that contention and it is totally at odds with all the other available evidence, numbers & analysis we have seen since Trudeau announced his leadership run in the Fall of 2012.  Other than a brief period of time when the Liberals took a hit last Spring/Summer in the months after the Alberta election, the Liberals had solid or improving numbers ever since Trudeau ran for leader.

And as I mentioned above, it's not just the election itself which is relevant, but what comes BEFORE the election.  One of the reasons the Liberals were able to win a Majority and win so many seats is because of their improved ground operation, strong candidates & larger volunteer base.  Those are things which Dion & Ignatieff were not able to accomplish.  Trudeau also had a strength on the campaign trail and amongst voters that the previous 2 leaders did not have.

I agree with most of this. Trudeau's personality and name was a huge factor in their win. I quite honestly find him smug and arrogant don't like him on a personal and political level. However, I recognize that at this point I am in a distinct minourity. That ad based upon the big rally was one of the finest " bandwagon ads" I have ever seen. And it was made possible by the enthusiasm of the Liberal base for Trudeau. He is very much like Reagan, shallow and projecting optimism. His cliches and boosterism will help him very much in the next election if the economy is doing well. However, if the economy is sputtering his sunny ways will, like Reagan be seen to be out of touch and will be anything but an asset then.

Saying a politician is smug and arrogant, says a lot about your reasons for disliking Trudeau. Ideally, your post above would have pertained to more rational criticism that called out Trudeau for more specific reasons that related to his and the Liberal party's positions.

What would you think if I called out Mulcair for being smug and arrogant? Wouldn't you expect something more legitimate as criticism? 

Fwiw, I criticize the NDP for licking Consdrvative hands in order to show their dislike of the Liberals. That's because the Liberals would be the threat of taking away their support that was never going to vote conservative. And it appeared to be playing into the Conservative's hands. NDPP understands this very well and commented on how he war (I think he said) enraged or embarrassed by the NDP for doing that. But if you want to hear it directly from NDPP, you'll have to ask him.

Now I must admit I have only read a couple of your posts when you first joined this site. Because I was unable to find any quality in any of your posts I stopped reading any of your contributions. However, I feel somewhat obligated to read and respond to your post because it appears to be an attempt by you to inject yourself into my conversation with another poster. So, here goes. Yes, I know you said that the NDP were licking the Conservative's boots. I also notice that you were effectively called out on that. At that point I had empathy for you because you must have felt quite bad for embarassing yourself for such a transparently foolish remark. But I guess not. A more self reflective individual would have not reminded people of this silly comment. As for the " content" of your post, you do realize that I was replying to a post about Trudeau and not the Liberal Party's positions? That is why I did not mention it. But I don't want to be too critical as the problem may lie in your inability to comprehend what you have read. Finally, I gave an opinion of Trudeau's personality and its role in the Liberal win. I also acknowledged that mine was a minority position. You do realize that others are entitled to their opinion. Now, I would rather you not interact with me. To be blunt I find your posts to be a strange mixture of absurdities and pure unadulterated goofiness.

And I repeat for your personal benefit: ...


Given your past record it is extremely unlikely that you could say anything that would be of any benefit for anyone here.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
I'm new here on this forum if the forum hasn't changed it's name. When I said 'I'm not" it meant that I don't consider myself very aggressive. You'll have to go back and look at how the problems evolved with Sean, but really, why bother.

Okay, maybe I was hasty, but calling the NDP Conservative boot-lickers was inflamatory. There was lots of criticism of Mulcair for his comments on the F-35s and on other issues as well. NDP supporters are really hurting right now. They almost won. The loss was devastating and the way forward isn't clear. I have to admit they were just as obnoxious at times prior to the loss but they have had a couple of years of frustration from the moment Trudeau won the leadership.

I am careful to be clear that I condemn the Mulcair NDP and executive, not members and supporters. I don't support everything Trudeau does and NDPers don't support everything the NDP or Mulcair does.

monty1 wrote:
There's been a lot more flung at Trudeau and Liberal but I don't care to argue that. I think the problem is that there are a lot more NDP'ers on this board than there are Liberals.

There are more NDPers, and some think they should have special status because this is a messageboard for progressives and activists. There are also some former NDPers and swing voters who went Liberal, at least a couple over marijuana legalization.

The Trudeau bashing is tedious but NDP bashing doesn't make it better. Both are empty of intelligent thought. Boot-licking was exagerated and wrong. The NDP has never tried to curry favor with the Conservatives. When they took the same positions on issues it was stragetic and against the Liberals. There are less offensive ways to criticize that behavior and it should be more specific. That is, you didn't provide the incidents that resulted in your conclusion.

monty1 wrote:
You may have noticed I entered this board as a NDP voter who now supports Trudeau (the anti-Harper) and I got a ton of flak for my position. That generated my hostility and arrogance against petty posters who come off as teenagers when they started posting pictures of little toy people who are supposed to represent 'trolls'. 

This is a sore spot for many NDPers so they accuse everyone who supports Trudeau of being Liberals. I think they don't realize that many NDP supporters were and are moderates.

Earlier you said "why bother" to verifying who started the altercation between yourself and Sean. That also applies to petty posters. I occasional snap back at them but I ignore most of it because I ask myself "why bother". Most of the time it isn't worth the two minutes it would take to respond and it allows them to draw the thread off topic. You may notice that it seems to happen more when they are losing an argument.

It's actually gotten to the point where some of the comments make me laugh outloud for real. On poster suggested I imagine Mulcair doing what Sophie did and I cried I was laughing so hard because he was referring to her singing the song "smile back at me" and I'm very visual. Think of him mimicking the hand gestures and facial expressions had me in stitches.

monty1 wrote:
It's no mystery. First and foremost, I'm antiwar. And the rest will sort itsefl out as long as we can keep the Conservatives away.

Then I"m surprised you support Trudeau. I'd like to stop our arms trade. Although I have an idealistic view of what the future could be I try to see the world as it is now. The problem is how to get from here to there. People like Trudeau and Mulcair and any other leader that could become the leader of a majority party will not get us there. Only people power can do that.

Although I am uncomfortably okay with the training mission and helping the Kurds generally speaking I am anti-war. In retrospect even Afghanistan. I want Canada to quit NATO but realistically that is viturally impossible with the current state of public understanding of the world. War is just one piece of the puzzle, it is a tool of neoliberalism. Many people believe the details are  beyond their understanding so they accept simplistic justifications. It goes like this. ISIS is evil. They must be stopped. What would you suggest we do? There is no easy answer to that question.

Politically you are not on the same side as most people here. While just about everyone is anti-Conservative many are just as anti-Liberal.

Where you are very much on the same side is in being anti-war. Think about your purpose here. If it is to discuss military action form an anti-war perspective I think you could have many enjoyable discussions.

You could also share your history with the NDP, why you started supporting them and when. Your thoughts on the leaders, whatever was important about the party to you.

 

 

Debater

Pondering wrote:

Boot-licking was exagerated and wrong. The NDP has never tried to curry favor with the Conservatives. When they took the same positions on issues it was stragetic and against

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

The book by Brad Lavigne about Building the Orange Wave, and the Susan Delacourt book about microtargetting, discuss the ways in which the Conservatives & NDP were kind of consulting on strategy and sharing/previewing Dion attack ads several years back.

And in one of Paul Wells' books he describes how Conservatives wanted the NDP to do well in Ontario in 2011 so that it would hurt the Liberals.

So it has been to the benefit of the NDP & Conservatives over the past decade to kind of help each other out at times, something which Elizabeth May also alleges the NDP has done.

But it's complicated.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Boot-licking was exagerated and wrong. The NDP has never tried to curry favor with the Conservatives. When they took the same positions on issues it was stragetic and against

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

The book by Brad Lavigne about Building the Orange Wave, and the Susan Delacourt book about microtargetting, discuss the ways in which the Conservatives & NDP were kind of consulting on strategy and sharing/previewing Dion attack ads several years back.

And in one of Paul Wells' books he describes how Conservatives wanted the NDP to do well in Ontario in 2011 so that it would hurt the Liberals.

So it has been to the benefit of the NDP & Conservatives over the past decade to kind of help each other out at times, something which Elizabeth May also alleges the NDP has done.

But it's complicated.


This is such a wildly partisan heap of steaming poo. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals have voted with the Conservatives many more times than the NDP has. And if that want bad enough they have voted with the Cons on some truly odious pieces of legislation regarding create me and security issues. I would have more respect for the Liberals if I didnt see this piece of nonsense repeated over and over, but maybe thats their strategy.

monty1

Pondering, a couple of answers to your lengthy and thoughtful post: I view Trudeau as the anti-Conservative and so an antiwar Prime Minister. I have hope for Trudeau in the same way I recognize the good Obama did for his country by preventing the planned wars on both Syria and Iran. I have much more to say on the issue as regards both Trudeau and Obama but I've invited a conversation and all I get is stubborn negativity. It's likely a fear of giving any praise or fair due to Trudeau. So again, I invite you and others to delve into the conversation. Perhaps it won't be so difficult because we can start from the position of everyone on this board understanding that Putin is on the side of right and being the good guy.

As for my use of the terms 'bootlicking' and 'the NDP licking Conservative hands like puppies', I realize they were unduly inflammatory and my kneejerk reactions to my debating opponents' abusive rhetoric at the time. I can tone that back, in expectation of a more civilized conversation all round. However, I do note that comments following your post reiterate that there's truth in the general accusations. Perhaps we'll get into details as we discuss this issue in further depth. If it's discussed at all from now on in.

Thanks for your considerate and reasonble remarks. I think we may continue to differ in some respects on how we handle attacks agaisnt Trudeau, the Liberals, or even ourselves. Some moderator involvement before the fact would be ideal in my opinion.

bswalks

To me the only hair of difference between Con/libs is how MANY members are social conservatives.

On the economic side, one could argue the Liberals are even more 'liberal' than the cons. IE bad.

 

Of course in the past 6 years everyone is now Keynesian, despite the myth of Paul Martin grand slayer of deficits *cough on the backs of the provinces and the poor cough*

monty1

bswalks wrote:

To me the only hair of difference between Con/libs is how MANY members are social conservatives.

On the economic side, one could argue the Liberals are even more 'liberal' than the cons. IE bad.

 

Of course in the past 6 years everyone is now Keynesian, despite the myth of Paul Martin grand slayer of deficits *cough on the backs of the provinces and the poor cough*

Everyone isn't Keynesian by a long shot but it's getting more encouraging day by day. I'm supposeing that you understand that if you're not Keynesian then you are a supply sider. Yes/No?

If so then therein lies the difference between the Liberals who you seem to be accusing of being Keynesian and the Conservatives who are surely clinging to Reaganomics, trickle down, supply side, whatever you choose to call it.

bswalks

monty1 wrote:

bswalks wrote:

To me the only hair of difference between Con/libs is how MANY members are social conservatives.

On the economic side, one could argue the Liberals are even more 'liberal' than the cons. IE bad.

 

Of course in the past 6 years everyone is now Keynesian, despite the myth of Paul Martin grand slayer of deficits *cough on the backs of the provinces and the poor cough*

Everyone isn't Keynesian by a long shot but it's getting more encouraging day by day. I'm supposeing that you understand that if you're not Keynesian then you are a supply sider. Yes/No?

If so then therein lies the difference between the Liberals who you seem to be accusing of being Keynesian and the Conservatives who are surely clinging to Reaganomics, trickle down, supply side, whatever you choose to call it.

Condesend much? But thanks for illustrating my intent. Paul Martin "Hell or Highwater" to slay the big bad deficit seems like ages ago.

If Mulcair had said he would run deficits he would have been slaughtered by the media.

Harper by definition was running Keynsian deficits with his so called Action Plan.  Perhaps you didn't notice that while being busy telling everyone else they know nothing about politics?

But the media had their little darling in a position to succeed, while covering up the TPP and C-51 enough to give him cover to side with them anyway.

monty1

bswalks wrote:

monty1 wrote:

bswalks wrote:

To me the only hair of difference between Con/libs is how MANY members are social conservatives.

On the economic side, one could argue the Liberals are even more 'liberal' than the cons. IE bad.

 

Of course in the past 6 years everyone is now Keynesian, despite the myth of Paul Martin grand slayer of deficits *cough on the backs of the provinces and the poor cough*

Everyone isn't Keynesian by a long shot but it's getting more encouraging day by day. I'm supposeing that you understand that if you're not Keynesian then you are a supply sider. Yes/No?

If so then therein lies the difference between the Liberals who you seem to be accusing of being Keynesian and the Conservatives who are surely clinging to Reaganomics, trickle down, supply side, whatever you choose to call it.

Condesend much? But thanks for illustrating my intent. Paul Martin "Hell or Highwater" to slay the big bad deficit seems like ages ago.

If Mulcair had said he would run deficits he would have been slaughtered by the media.

Harper by definition was running Keynsian deficits with his so called Action Plan. Perhaps you didn't notice that while being busy telling everyone else they know nothing about politics?

But the media had their little darling in a position to succeed, while covering up the TPP and C-51 enough to give him cover to side with them anyway.

First, how about stopping the insults and come to the understanding that another poster has come into your little world and is shaking up your circle of mutual admiration?

If Mulcair said he would run a deficit then I would have expected that he could have pulled it off as well as Trudeau. Providing he thought of it first, which unfortunately for him, he didn't. You could explain why you think otherwise?

I doubt that the media had a little darling in Trudeau. In fact, Eric Grenier of the CBC never did take his prediction to a majority for the Liberals. That would have been an easy thing for him to do if you remember how his charts worked. He was sharply criticized by the Liberals for not doing that and on top of that he lost future credibility for his stubborness. 

Pondering

bswalks wrote:

If Mulcair had said he would run deficits he would have been slaughtered by the media.

We need to run deficits right now, even larger than what Trudeau has planned. If the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit it doesn't have the credibility to run the country.

The NDP sided with the Conservatives on the importance of balanced budgets even using the argument of not leaving debt on future generations so that gets echoed here.

The NDP also sided with the Conservatives on not raising taxes on the wealthy even using the argument that if taxes are too high doctors will leave.

Both these arguments encourage ignorance when Keynesian theory should be paramount and the wealthy are walking away with the lion's share of profits.

Pondering

To be fair, Monty is only doing what some posters have been doing to me for years. What comes around goes around. It is longstanding babblers that want to be able to insult other posters that set this tone.

I don't want Monty to do that but I have to admit it's amusing to see some getting a taste of their own medicine. He isn't going to be banned for doing what some here have been doing for years.

If you want to stop the type of behavior Monty has been exibiting then you have to discuss changing the rules for everyone.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
If the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit it doesn't have the credibility to run the country.

nonsensical.

credibility isn't = ability

just as puff the magic dragon isn't = ability

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

We need to run deficits right now, even larger than what Trudeau has planned. If the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit it doesn't have the credibility to run the country.

And why is that?  Is it because of the structural deficit from years of Conservative and Liberal tax cuts?  Would running large deficits help the structural deficit?  Or would it lead to higher inflation and even greater instability resulting in another round of Martin-like service cuts later?  Wouldn't expanding government tax revenues, via items like increased corporate taxes and closing loopholes on stock options, to be able to fund and maintain long term fixed cost social programs like child care, national public housing, etc, along with infrastructure expenditures, make more sense?  Doesn't it make more sense to deal with the infrastructure deficit (the root of the problem) that past Liberal and Conservative governments created with their tax cuts?

monty1

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
If the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit it doesn't have the credibility to run the country.

nonsensical.

credibility isn't = ability

just as puff the magic dragon isn't = ability

I think you may have missed his point,  or maybe not but I'll tell you anyway. It was said that the NDP would have been slaughtered/massacred/destroyed/whatever if they tried to run a deficit. I think that was insinuating that they would fall into the trap that the other parties have always been trying to get them to fall into. Irresponsible leftist spending.

I don't think so but in any case it's too late and the Liberals finally got away with it. It's been a long time coming and Trudeau not only had the balls to do it but the common sense to do it in a campaign.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

To be fair, Monty is only doing what some posters have been doing to me for years. What comes around goes around. It is longstanding babblers that want to be able to insult other posters that set this tone.

I don't want Monty to do that but I have to admit it's amusing to see some getting a taste of their own medicine. He isn't going to be banned for doing what some here have been doing for years.

If you want to stop the type of behavior Monty has been exibiting then you have to discuss changing the rules for everyone.

I'm not sure what you think I'm doing to "you"? Regardless of what you think I did to others. I think you're pretty clever in most regards but I still have to remind you of what you miss when you describe socialism or leftist agendas or the common agenda that opposed the fascist right.

edit: hey, I might have read that wrong but I'll leave it stand as it won't hurt anything and might serve to reitterate Pondering's point.

quizzical

"had the balls" to do it????

fkn really?????????????

 

monty1

quizzical wrote:

"had the balls" to do it????

fkn really?????????????

 

I understand you don't like the idea but what can one say?

What can you say? In another thread you make no comment and I have to ask you, in a non-derect way what you mean and then in this one you just use your usual profanity and a bunch of question marks. Again!!

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
  I'm not sure what you think I'm doing to "you"?

Nothing at all. I guess that is why it's amusing. The "tone" others have complained of is quite common here only it is only supposed to go in one direction. NDPers can criticize and insult the Liberals and talk down to anyone who supported Trudeau over Mulcair, but if anyone takes that attitude towards them and the NDP they are accused of baiting and being a troll.

monty1 wrote:
  Regardless of what you think I did to others. I think you're pretty clever in most regards but I still have to remind you of what you miss when you describe socialism or leftist agendas or the common agenda that opposed the fascist right. 

I don't understand what you mean.

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

"had the balls" to do it????

fkn really?????????????

 

I understand you don't like the idea but what can one say?

What can you say? In another thread you make no comment and I have to ask you, in a non-derect way what you mean and then in this one you just use your usual profanity and a bunch of question marks. Again!!


It is sad that such sexist language is used so casually here. It is sadder still that the author of this sexist language seems to absolutely clueless as to what he has done. quizzical, you can tell him but I don't think you can explain it to him.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:
  I'm not sure what you think I'm doing to "you"?

Nothing at all. I guess that is why it's amusing. The "tone" others have complained of is quite common here only it is only supposed to go in one direction. NDPers can criticize and insult the Liberals and talk down to anyone who supported Trudeau over Mulcair, but if anyone takes that attitude towards them and the NDP they are accused of baiting and being a troll.

monty1 wrote:
  Regardless of what you think I did to others. I think you're pretty clever in most regards but I still have to remind you of what you miss when you describe socialism or leftist agendas or the common agenda that opposed the fascist right. 

I don't understand what you mean.

I realized too late that you weren't talking about what "I" did to you, you were talking about what the others did to you and what I'm doing to them now. Sorry for the confusion. The other point made is that you sometimes forget that the antiwar agenda is the leftist agenda. Or at least we think it must be..

I'm also getting paranoid. I'm hearing footsteps. I don't think a couple of individuals can allow the party to last.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

"had the balls" to do it????

fkn really?????????????

I understand you don't like the idea but what can one say?

What can you say? In another thread you make no comment and I have to ask you, in a non-derect way what you mean and then in this one you just use your usual profanity and a bunch of question marks. Again!!

It is sad that such sexist language is used so casually here. It is sadder still that the author of this sexist language seems to absolutely clueless as to what he has done. quizzical, you can tell him but I don't think you can explain it to him.

I disagree. Having the balls to do something is in common usage. I think it's worth discouraging it, and saying "have the guts" or "have the courage" but it isn't a direct put down of women. Same goes for "take it like a man".  We could also say "take it like a woman" or "take it like an adult" but "take it like a man" is in common usuage so some people will use it when addressing a man. It doesn't mean the person is deliberately insulting women.

To me this sort of incident is reason to maybe raise the topic and let the person know you find the language sexist and why but it isn't a reason to insult someone or act like they are an idiot for not knowing. They may not agree even after it's been explained but in that case I would let it go based on the "pick your battles" principle. I'd rather aim my guns at domestic and sexual violence. If an ally isn't up on the finer points of feminism I'll still accept their support on the larger issues rather than disparaging them for not reaching the proper level of enlightenment as defined by me.

The right does not require everyone to march in lockstep on every detail or look down on people that haven't entirely bought into their world view. The left isn't very good at gaining support from the general public and that isn't because it can't be done. It can be done, the right succeeded. So can the left but it will take new tactics.

quizzical

jjuares wrote:
monty1 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
"had the balls" to do it????

fkn really?????????????

I understand you don't like the idea but what can one say?

What can you say? In another thread you make no comment and I have to ask you, in a non-derect way what you mean and then in this one you just use your usual profanity and a bunch of question marks. Again!!

It is sad that such sexist language is used so casually here. It is sadder still that the author of this sexist language seems to absolutely clueless as to what he has done. quizzical, you can tell him but I don't think you can explain it to him.

then to double down with telling me i'm using profanity i guess while his use of "balls" which slaps ya in the face with great hairy negative imagery, is just normal everyday words.

hypocrisy. oh i should just say "Liberal"

Pondering

monty1 wrote:
I realized too late that you weren't talking about what "I" did to you, you were talking about what the others did to you and what I'm doing to them now. Sorry for the confusion. The other point made is that you sometimes forget that the antiwar agenda is the leftist agenda. Or at least we think it must be.. 

It is but everything is interconnected and the public has a short attention span and no interest in discussing geopolitics. We can influence the level of Canada's participation, but that won't reduce the violence. For that we need to address the root causes of war. There are some drivers that are resistant to change directed by us, such as extremist Islam. There are others that we are responsible for, like climate change and the arms trade and exploitative trade deals that impoverish people leaving them vulnerable to extremists and rebels.

monty1 wrote:

I'm also getting paranoid. I'm hearing footsteps. I don't think a couple of individuals can allow the party to last.

 

Now I don't understand that.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:
I realized too late that you weren't talking about what "I" did to you, you were talking about what the others did to you and what I'm doing to them now. Sorry for the confusion. The other point made is that you sometimes forget that the antiwar agenda is the leftist agenda. Or at least we think it must be.. 

It is but everything is interconnected and the public has a short attention span and no interest in discussing geopolitics. We can influence the level of Canada's participation, but that won't reduce the violence. For that we need to address the root causes of war. There are some drivers that are resistant to change directed by us, such as extremist Islam. There are others that we are responsible for, like climate change and the arms trade and exploitative trade deals that impoverish people leaving them vulnerable to extremists and rebels.

monty1 wrote:

I'm also getting paranoid. I'm hearing footsteps. I don't think a couple of individuals can allow the party to last.

 

Now I don't understand that.

Sad in my view that you mention extremist Islam is resistant to change but you fail to mention the root cause. US aggression! Maybe that can't be changed by us but we, our country, can do a lot to take away it's legitimacy. And that takes me right back to the topic of Trudeau removing the 6 bombers. 

That's what the US doesn't want because it's visible support they can count on to lend them legitimacy from one of the most legitimate coutries in the world. And even though the UK is their most prolific and largest partner in the killing, their legitimacy has likely fallen bolow that of Canada. 

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

Sad in my view that you mention extremist Islam is resistant to change but you fail to mention the root cause. US aggression! Maybe that can't be changed by us but we, our country, can do a lot to take away it's legitimacy. And that takes me right back to the topic of Trudeau removing the 6 bombers. 

That's what the US doesn't want because it's visible support they can count on to lend them legitimacy from one of the most legitimate coutries in the world. And even though the UK is their most prolific and largest partner in the killing, their legitimacy has likely fallen bolow that of Canada. 

Not just the US, Canada has been fully complicit and not just under Harper. We did invade Afghanistan and Libya among other countries. Our actions did cause more harm than good. Having said that there is no single root cause. The arms trade also plays a large part. The mid-east countries have their own agendas.

Canada is a lot less important in the world than we sometimes imagine. The US wants our support but not giving it won't change what they do.

Pages