Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 10327
Joined: May 24 2005

Stockholm wrote:

"Why don't you look at the many years worth of resolutions in favour of anti-scab legislation that the Manitoba NDP has passed, and the fact that after 10 years the NDP government hasn't passed it, and then tell me how much weight resolutions passed at conventions actually carry?"

Well then there is nothing to discuss is there? Resolutions don't matter anyways, so people like Dana Larsen and the Socialist Caucus should stop wasting their and everyone else's time by introducing any resolutions in the first place? If resolutions don't carry any weight - why are these people so obsessed with getting resolutions on their pet issues voted on in the first place???

What does this have to do with the Socialist Caucus? I certainly never brought them up.

In any case, your response proves my point exactly. What's the point of members passing convention resolutions if the leadership of the Party is only going to arbitrarily ignore them anyways?


Investigation into treatment of Dana Larson and the marijuana resolution needed By: Darwin OConnor (114 replies) August 27, 2009 - 12:05pm
  • The issue here is not BC or By: MUN Prof. (Aug 28 2009 - 2:42pm)
  • remind wrote: If heroin By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 2:39pm)
  • melovesproles wrote: I wish By: Slumberjack (Aug 28 2009 - 2:30pm)
  • Quote:Yes, as we have seen, By: melovesproles (Aug 28 2009 - 2:26pm)
  • But Mexico is also building By: pcml (Aug 28 2009 - 2:24pm)
  • Mexico apparently did an By: Snert (Aug 28 2009 - 2:00pm)
  • Dana, I agree that it is a By: remind (Aug 28 2009 - 1:55pm)
  • edit just not worth the By: Bookish Agrarian (Aug 28 2009 - 1:49pm)
  • Quote: Larsen and his gang By: Dana Larsen (Aug 28 2009 - 1:40pm)
  • ... it is obvious the NDP By: remind (Aug 28 2009 - 1:34pm)
  • Sineed wrote: And crack By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 1:17pm)
  • MUN Prof. wrote: Yes, as we By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 1:12pm)
  • To clarify, I never said By: ottawaobserver (Aug 28 2009 - 12:45pm)
  • Yes, as we have seen, single By: MUN Prof. (Aug 28 2009 - 12:40pm)
  • I have not been here for a By: pcml (Aug 28 2009 - 12:07pm)
  • Stockholm wrote: And the By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 11:50am)
  • Regulation and strict By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 11:48am)
  • Stockholm wrote: Darwin By: mahara (Aug 28 2009 - 11:42am)
  • Stockholm wrote:   As has By: ocsi (Aug 28 2009 - 11:39am)
  • Maybe they weren't being By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 9:51am)
  • How could they have given By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 9:36am)
  • Darwin OConnor wrote: SSM By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 9:36am)
  • Darwin OConnor wrote: Even By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 9:27am)
  • SSM was unpopular in Canada By: Darwin OConnor (Aug 28 2009 - 9:11am)
  • Actually, I've never met By: Stockholm (Aug 28 2009 - 9:00am)
  • Me too, Boom Boom (nice to By: Sineed (Aug 28 2009 - 8:47am)
  • I agree Dana was treated By: Boom Boom (Aug 27 2009 - 5:43pm)
  • ...just like in the BC By: Stockholm (Aug 27 2009 - 5:38pm)
  • I think the Green party is By: melovesproles (Aug 27 2009 - 5:31pm)
  • Daniel, I'd like to see what By: Stockholm (Aug 27 2009 - 4:33pm)
  • MUN Prof. wrote: How about a By: kropotkin1951 (Aug 27 2009 - 4:23pm)
  • How about a Royal By: MUN Prof. (Aug 27 2009 - 1:58pm)
  • There was no filibuster, By: sandpiper (Aug 27 2009 - 1:56pm)
  • I highly doubt there was By: madmax (Aug 27 2009 - 1:51pm)
  • You may want to add to it By: Daniel Grice (Aug 27 2009 - 12:10pm)