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

176 posts / 0 new
Last post
bswalks

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.

Well I find it very progreesive of you to find insults amusing. And to relish paybacks. Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable somewhere else?

Or perhaps monty is your sock puppet. To let you get away with saying things that SHOULD get you banned.

You are claiming the victim but you stir the pot better than most and ignore what you don't want to respond to.

Much like the sock puppet Monty.

I came here for discussion but apprently this is just another Liberal echo chamber and is not at all progressive. This poster has violated babble policy on nearly every post and yet nothing has happened.

Well enjoy your little snipe fest and snide remarks and gloating. This place is a sewer, I might as well hang out on a right wing site.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

There's nothing against babble policy to support the Liberals. If so,the site becomes an NDP echo chamber---which is just as bad.

Anyhow,thanks for visiting. Goodbye.

bswalks

alan smithee wrote:

There's nothing against babble policy to support the Liberals. If so,the site becomes an NDP echo chamber---which is just as bad.

Anyhow,thanks for visiting. Goodbye.

No but there is policy against oppresive language, abuse, baiting. And there has been plenty of that.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I agree with you about that. I don't know what going on about this. I've been here for a few years and have been reprimanded and suspended for far less. 

I think if enough people flag abuse,the mods will have no option but to do their jobs.   

Pondering

bswalks wrote:
Well I find it very progreesive of you to find insults amusing. And to relish paybacks. Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable somewhere else? 

Not at all. This is where I learned to find it amusing. I got suckered many times. Then I learned not be upset. Then I learned to be amused by it. Amused is much better than upset. You should try it some time.

bswalks wrote:
You are claiming the victim but you stir the pot better than most and ignore what you don't want to respond to. 

Doesn't everyone ignore what they don't want to respond to? Is there a problem with that? If anyone wants me to respond to something in particular all they have to do is say so.

It's against the rules to call someone a sock puppet. Odd how you only joined a couple of weeks ago, yet you claim to know me. I'm pretty sure the mods can check IP addresses or have some other means of identifying "sock puppets". 

bswalks wrote:
I came here for discussion but apprently this is just another Liberal echo chamber and is not at all progressive. This poster has violated babble policy on nearly every post and yet nothing has happened. 

Criticizing the NDP is not baiting it's political opinion. If you don't think babble is at all progressive maybe your standards are too high for us. Perhaps you don't understand babble policy as well as you think you do.

bswalks wrote:
Well enjoy your little snipe fest and snide remarks and gloating. This place is a sewer, I might as well hang out on a right wing site. 

I had to learn to tolerate it. This is the way the old members of babble wanted it. It is of the utmost important to babblers to be able to say "fuck" and to bait people who support the Liberals. Babblers are accustomed to this being fairly one-sided most of the time. Monty's arrival changed that. Posters sniped at him and made snide remarks to him and he responded in kind. Then some posters go running to the mods and ask them for protection from what they invited.

That is very amusing.

 

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

I agree with you about that. I don't know what going on about this. I've been here for a few years and have been reprimanded and suspended for far less. 

I think if enough people flag abuse,the mods will have no option but to do their jobs.   

If you fight back in kind, or start the fight in the first place, the mods don't jump in to protect you. Some tried to get him on sexism for saying things like "take it like a man" but it was obvious that was just an excuse to go after him. People talked down to him, insulted him, so he did the same right back. Turnabout is fair play.

Some posters who support the NDP think the NDP should have special status here so when they are insulting the Liberals it isn't baiting, but if anyone insults the NDP it is baiting. That isn't something the mods are going to support.

 

monty1

Pondering wrote:

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.

There is a root cause of all the problems in the ME. "Root" is the key word. And all the problems started with the US led war on Iraq in 1990. It was planned and they deliberately provoked Saddam into attacking Kuwait. In fact invited Iraq to move on Kuwait. We need not go into details, I don't think. 

And it's no coincidence that this happened immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union, which was up until then the only deterrent to US led wars of aggression. And now of course they have plans of seeing the PNAC agenda through to completion.

Yes, there are a lot of events that have spun off from that but there is still a "root" cause.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

There is a root cause of all the problems in the ME. "Root" is the key word. And all the problems started with the US led war on Iraq in 1990. It was planned and they deliberately provoked Saddam into attacking Kuwait. In fact invited Iraq to move on Kuwait. We need not go into details, I don't think. 

And it's no coincidence that this happened immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union, which was up until then the only deterrent to US led wars of aggression. And now of course they have plans of seeing the PNAC agenda through to completion.

Yes, there are a lot of events that have spun off from that but there is still a "root" cause.

It did destabilize the region but they weren't all best buddies before 1990. As I understand it Russia and the US had a proxy war in Afganistan which birthed the Taliban. Even prior to that the Sunni and Shia strains of Islam were hostile towards one another which is why Iraq was so easy to destabilize after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

We can't roll back the clock, we can only move forward from where we are now. Simply withdrawing might stem the tide of refugees but it would also strengthen ISIS which is expansionist. That doesn't mean bombing is a good idea. I don't think there are any simple answers now. That is why I am pleased with Sajjan. He talked about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan, two countries we  rarely hear about except in reference to refugees fleeing Syria.

MegB

Monty, stop baiting people or I most definitely will ban you. Folks, please stop taking the bait. (I'm still reeling from the fact that Sean and Pondering can agree on something - has hell frozen over?)

Pondering

MegB wrote:

Monty, stop baiting people or I most definitely will ban you. Folks, please stop taking the bait. (I'm still reeling from the fact that Sean and Pondering can agree on something - has hell frozen over?)

You would be surprised. We have agreed on a number of items recently Smile although we are both still pricklyFrown.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

There is a root cause of all the problems in the ME. "Root" is the key word. And all the problems started with the US led war on Iraq in 1990. It was planned and they deliberately provoked Saddam into attacking Kuwait. In fact invited Iraq to move on Kuwait. We need not go into details, I don't think. 

And it's no coincidence that this happened immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union, which was up until then the only deterrent to US led wars of aggression. And now of course they have plans of seeing the PNAC agenda through to completion.

Yes, there are a lot of events that have spun off from that but there is still a "root" cause.

It did destabilize the region but they weren't all best buddies before 1990. As I understand it Russia and the US had a proxy war in Afganistan which birthed the Taliban. Even prior to that the Sunni and Shia strains of Islam were hostile towards one another which is why Iraq was so easy to destabilize after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

We can't roll back the clock, we can only move forward from where we are now. Simply withdrawing might stem the tide of refugees but it would also strengthen ISIS which is expansionist. That doesn't mean bombing is a good idea. I don't think there are any simple answers now. That is why I am pleased with Sajjan. He talked about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan, two countries we  rarely hear about except in reference to refugees fleeing Syria.

I hear you and I appreciate your sensible comments. However, at the moment there seems to be some confusion, at least in my mind, on whether or not what I have said to you in this conversation has been objectionable to Meg. I'll reply when and if the confusion is straightened out. 

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

I hear you and I appreciate your sensible comments. However, at the moment there seems to be some confusion, at least in my mind, on whether or not what I have said to you in this conversation has been objectionable to Meg. I'll reply when and if the confusion is straightened out. 

She wasn't referring to our conversation. The mods only have 4 paid hours a week to monitor the board. You got flagged a lot because some people here want you banned. The flagged posts probably were rude, but they were in response to rudeness so Meg did not accept the accusation that you are a troll. At the same time she doesn't appreciate a flood of flagged posts either.

Unfortunately it seems the target is sometimes held responsible for the onslaught because it is X number against 1.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

I hear you and I appreciate your sensible comments. However, at the moment there seems to be some confusion, at least in my mind, on whether or not what I have said to you in this conversation has been objectionable to Meg. I'll reply when and if the confusion is straightened out. 

She wasn't referring to our conversation. The mods only have 4 paid hours a week to monitor the board. You got flagged a lot because some people here want you banned. The flagged posts probably were rude, but they were in response to rudeness so Meg did not accept the accusation that you are a troll. At the same time she doesn't appreciate a flood of flagged posts either.

Unfortunately it seems the target is sometimes held responsible for the onslaught because it is X number against 1.

Thanks. So that makes it impossible for me to know where I offended. It's just a general case of bad feelings toward me for political reasons and nothing really valid. I think I know how all that could become a problem for a moderator with only 4 hours to really look at what is happening and act accordingly. I'm at a loss! I went back two days on this thread and found nothing applicalbe to a warning of being banned. The warning was misplaced and maybe I'll get an answer from Meg on where it belongs.

Absolutely incredible the attitudes of some of the people on this forum. The hypocrisy, the nerve, the gall, the pettiness, and the attitude that this is going to be strictly an NDP forum that will not tolerate anything else. Your numerous comments to that effect weren't appreciated enough by me but now I see that they were no exaggeration.

Frankly, I don't know if the system this board is based and conducted upon will allow a person with a different political POV to survive? Your post has caused me to understand completely! Now I'm not sure I want to continue but I'll wait for an explanation from the mod or mods.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

monty1 wrote:

Absolutely incredible the attitudes of some of the people on this forum. The hypocrisy, the nerve, the gall, the pettiness, and the attitude that this is going to be strictly an NDP forum that will not tolerate anything else. Your numerous comments to that effect weren't appreciated enough by me but now I see that they were no exaggeration.

Frankly, I don't know if the system this board is based and conducted upon will allow a person with a different political POV to survive? Your post has caused me to understand completely! Now I'm not sure I want to continue but I'll wait for an explanation from the mod or mods.

You seem to feel that babblers object to your postings because they disagree with your political beliefs. While it is true that many disagree with you, that is not the reason they object to your posts. There is a distinction between what is said and how it is said. Most people have an intuitive feel for this, but perhaps you do not.

I could take just about any one of your posts here, and rewrite it in such a way that the political content would be the same, but nobody would be offended, or complain about it. They might vigorously contest it, but there would be no hard feelings, and no insults. It could be as simple as writing "in my opinion" before making a statement that you know will be contentious. This says to your readers that you know they may disagree, and you don't claim that your opinion is fact, while theirs is bunk.

If you don't see what I'm talking about, then I apologize for wasting your time.

jjuares

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Absolutely incredible the attitudes of some of the people on this forum. The hypocrisy, the nerve, the gall, the pettiness, and the attitude that this is going to be strictly an NDP forum that will not tolerate anything else. Your numerous comments to that effect weren't appreciated enough by me but now I see that they were no exaggeration.

Frankly, I don't know if the system this board is based and conducted upon will allow a person with a different political POV to survive? Your post has caused me to understand completely! Now I'm not sure I want to continue but I'll wait for an explanation from the mod or mods.

You seem to feel that babblers object to your postings because they disagree with your political beliefs. While it is true that many disagree with you, that is not the reason they object to your posts. There is a distinction between what is said and how it is said. Most people have an intuitive feel for this, but perhaps you do not.

I could take just about any one of your posts here, and rewrite it in such a way that the political content would be the same, but nobody would be offended, or complain about it. They might vigorously contest it, but there would be no hard feelings, and no insults. It could be as simple as writing "in my opinion" before making a statement that you know will be contentious. This says to your readers that you know they may disagree, and you don't claim that your opinion is fact, while theirs is bunk.

If you don't see what I'm talking about, then I apologize for wasting your time.


Yes, I just exchanged posts with this guy. He wants the planes back home from the war and so do I. We agreed on the issue and didn't even get into areas of disagreement. Yet, every post of his contained a condescending insult. So I responded in kind and he complained about my sarcasm. So, I guess if you want to interact with this poster be preapared to be insulted. He says that he doesnt understand why people are offended. I believe he is being truthful.

Debater

Some of these threads sure drift far off topic.

monty1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Absolutely incredible the attitudes of some of the people on this forum. The hypocrisy, the nerve, the gall, the pettiness, and the attitude that this is going to be strictly an NDP forum that will not tolerate anything else. Your numerous comments to that effect weren't appreciated enough by me but now I see that they were no exaggeration.

Frankly, I don't know if the system this board is based and conducted upon will allow a person with a different political POV to survive? Your post has caused me to understand completely! Now I'm not sure I want to continue but I'll wait for an explanation from the mod or mods.

You seem to feel that babblers object to your postings because they disagree with your political beliefs. While it is true that many disagree with you, that is not the reason they object to your posts. There is a distinction between what is said and how it is said. Most people have an intuitive feel for this, but perhaps you do not.

I could take just about any one of your posts here, and rewrite it in such a way that the political content would be the same, but nobody would be offended, or complain about it. They might vigorously contest it, but there would be no hard feelings, and no insults. It could be as simple as writing "in my opinion" before making a statement that you know will be contentious. This says to your readers that you know they may disagree, and you don't claim that your opinion is fact, while theirs is bunk.

If you don't see what I'm talking about, then I apologize for wasting your time.

You would say 'in my opinion' Michael. Just like int this condescending piece of insulting garbage you have just written? It's political differences Michael, and nothing more. Why not go back and have a look at the concocted list of grievances Sean tried to sell the moderators. The public response we got was, I can't ban him for his opinions, or something like that. Tell jjuares for me o.k. because I'm not going to even acknowledge his personal attacks anymore. Have a nice evening.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Some of these threads sure drift far off topic.

Debater, rather than preach, why don't you ask your sycophant party supporters to stop knocking them off topic? And seriously, you are a fine one to preach. When are you finally going to stop judging others. It is getting so tiresome.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I agree with you about that. I don't know what going on about this. I've been here for a few years and have been reprimanded and suspended for far less. 

I think if enough people flag abuse,the mods will have no option but to do their jobs.   

If you fight back in kind, or start the fight in the first place, the mods don't jump in to protect you. Some tried to get him on sexism for saying things like "take it like a man" but it was obvious that was just an excuse to go after him. People talked down to him, insulted him, so he did the same right back. Turnabout is fair play.

Some posters who support the NDP think the NDP should have special status here so when they are insulting the Liberals it isn't baiting, but if anyone insults the NDP it is baiting. That isn't something the mods are going to support.

 

What nonsense Pondering. Do you EVER stop whining? Your post just drips with projectin. Look in the mirror.

Debater

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

Some of these threads sure drift far off topic.

Debater, rather than preach, why don't you ask your sycophant party supporters to stop knocking them off topic? And seriously, you are a fine one to preach. When are you finally going to stop judging others. It is getting so tiresome.

Arthur, why don't you stop being so confrontational all the time?

Maybe then we could have a more productive discussion together someday.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

Some of these threads sure drift far off topic.

Debater, rather than preach, why don't you ask your sycophant party supporters to stop knocking them off topic? And seriously, you are a fine one to preach. When are you finally going to stop judging others. It is getting so tiresome.

Arthur, why don't you stop being so confrontational all the time?

Maybe then we could have a more productive discussion together someday.

That's impossible. Your view of things policial is so slanted and counter to mine there's no way Debater. You support a party of elitist, one percenters, who screw orindary working people over and over, who sign terrible trade deals that take away our rights, stick it to the unemployed and genarally make the lives of most Canadians worse. Sorry, the only this would ever be productive would be for you to admit that you were wrong and the NDP is the ONLY hope for change that will benefit oridinary Canadians. Probably not to going happen. Productive means seeing it your way. Nope!

MegB

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What nonsense Pondering. Do you EVER stop whining? Your post just drips with projectin. Look in the mirror.

AC, will you EVER stop the personal attacks? Your constant abuse of Pondering and Debator is in flagrant violation of  babble policy. I think you need a day or two to step back and think about whether you are capable of productive and respectful debate.

Just A Moment Just A Moment's picture

I see Trudeau as a breath of fresh air - a return of integrity to Ottawa - unless he proves me wrong somehow. He also represents some real hope to all the people who were screwed over by Harper's arrogant disregard for the law. It would be great if Trudeau could right some Harper wrongs like exposing Harper's role in allowing $1 Billion of drug smuggling into Canada. Look at the below chart and link and keep in mind that Mike Huxtable is personal friends with Stephen Harper, and now you know why...  http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24998-will-harper-unseal-terry-...

Trudeau can indeed be a "dragon slayer" if he so chooses to pick up the sword laid at his feet by the voters. There is no doubt that Canada could use a few.

terrytowel

From Robyn Urback in today's National Post 

 if the NDP hopes to offer an alternative to the government, it needs proposals that don’t simply echo those of the party in power, even if those ideas were lifted wholesale from the NDP policy book. Time for the NDP to go back to the drawing board and come up with something new and bold, or face another lengthy spell as the afterthought party.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-the-new-ndp-same-...

monty1

terrytowel wrote:

From Robyn Urback in today's National Post 

 if the NDP hopes to offer an alternative to the government, it needs proposals that don’t simply echo those of the party in power, even if those ideas were lifted wholesale from the NDP policy book. Time for the NDP to go back to the drawing board and come up with something new and bold, or face another lengthy spell as the afterthought party.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-the-new-ndp-same-...

I like it! Because the only opening for the NDP is to go further left on some issues than the Liberals are currently standing. That could be progress if they are careful to bring the public along. But most importantly, I believe that Trudeau can be taken further left on some issues if he feels safe in doing so.

Dog knows what the specifics could be? It probably can't be the 6 bombers in the ME because we're told that 2/3rds. of the people are for keeping them in. So what?

Pages