babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Unionist, I can't resist taking you on, you are just too jucy a target sometimes. But you have clarified your remarks re: not caring about death threats, so I'll lay off for awhile.
I'm still not going to enter the main debate. I love the passion on both sides, and generally am pretty symptathetic to the Palestinian cause, but I'm just not going to join a heated argument unless I'm sure of my position, which I'm not.
I'm not sure what kind of a 'budget' is needed to bear my children. Really, I'm a simple guy. Dinner and a movie is all that's generally required.
No personal attack, simply calling you on your callous crap. You feel free to do whatever you wish all the time. But as soon as you do it you go on and on about how you are being personally attacked. Irony all around.
I'm just plain confused now. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will, even if I'm not wrong), but I thought this discussion began when rasmus linked to DiNovo's FB meltdown, which I continue to consider problematic in a number of ways.
And even before that, the problem wasn't the A-word -- it was the unconstitutional, McCarthyist presumption of parliamentarians that they have the right to tell citizens how they can or cannot think, how they can or cannot express themselves, what their "values" must be. It's really no different from the CPCCA discussion, which of course makes Dawg's attack on babble so ironic, given his position on the CPCCA (HUAC North, which of course is exactly what it is).
Nope, you're correct skdadl.
Personally I prefer promoting division among the conservative right and rightwing liberals wrt 9/11 than going after Satan's little helpers in Israel.
And I will continue to vote for the NDP and support Cheri DiNovo who are fighting for social democracy right here in the have-not banana republic of Ontariariario.
Thanks, Stargazer. Torture -- y'know, it's always such a problem for me. Like, I find it rilly rilly hard to get past torture.
Torture Central right next door to Bananada.
I hope that kitteh is ok, Fidel. And of course I go on voting NDP -- what else can we do? Hold your ground, Andrea!
Smokey's a-ok for now except for his runny eyes, thanks Skdadl. I think he had an infection of some kind. He hasn't fallen over in a number of weeks now and trotting around the house like before.
9/11, that's the one the bipartisan war criminals don't want questioning. Israel is like South Africa. They'd much rather the left tilt at windmills in Israel than focus on vicious empire central. Israel's days are numbered according to a US Government report.
That's correct - 100%. It would be ironic if DiNovo's attack on progressives became a re-opening of the discussion here about how good or bad Israel really is, instead of all of us agreeing that it's not a good thing to join Harper and Kenney in their attack on democracy in Canada.
When the electorate isn't even allowed to voice their discontent in a civil manner without being labelled the same as those who are disgusting enough to utter violent threats. One more reason not to waste time voting in my books.
The thread unionist linked to of rasmus' was indeed only about CDN "self destruction", it made NO pretense of being about anything other than that. It was a mocking attack geared to further her destruction, and sfae. Please do not make it appear noble as it wasn't.
Thread title is Cheri di Novo self-destructs
The former threads on this were about her:
1. Taking a stand opposite that what some of her allies believed she should be
2. How politicians do not have the right to tell Canadians what they should or should not being thinking and using as words.
Right you are 1200 percent! I shall refuse to waste my time voting Liberal or Tory based on what's being in Toronto about a political matter in another hemisphere of the world. It's always good to have tiny countries in the Middle East determine how we vote for social democracy in the Northern Puerto Rico.
18.2% of the valid vote was for the NDP in the last Federal election. Since the voter turn out was 58.8% of the eligible population that would mean that the NDP got support from 10.7% of all eligible Canadians, while 41.2% considered them similar enough to the Liberals and Conservates that they didn't care. The fact is if just one party new or pre-existing showed enough respect to voters that they could trust them and offered reasonable comprimise on divisive issues they could easily win a commanding majority particularly given our first past the post system.
As most Babblers know first hand.
I agree that's the core issue with the Ontario motion. At the same time, it wouldn't matter an iota what IAW was called. The underlying issue is BDS - something I don't think that the NDP supports at this time. So if it wasn't called IAW and was called some "nicey nicey" name, the motion would have still gone forward equating BDS with anti-semitism and hatred. That is now official federal federal government's policy - just ask KAIROS (who only considered whether to consider BDS in the past and chose not to do so). They were smeared and punished for just engaging in a discussion some years ago.
All the suffering that people have experienced and the work done by human rights activists is being turned on its head. Perhaps this is the slippery slope that some warned about regarding Canada's hate crime laws. Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?
The "A" word debate is a red herring.
Follow the campaign funding war chests. Did the NDP have the same kind of money to spend on reaching all Canadians with their socialist propaganda as the two Bay Street parties? I don't think so. I've met people in my hometown who still think the NDP are a party of Bolsheviks. I wonder who with the money and access to propaganda tools educated them with that idea over extended periods of time?
No, I think Canadians aren't voting because they are just not impressed with the two old line parties' records in power over the last 25 years. And this is that point in time when the Liberal Party risks becoming an irrelevant conservative party unless they move back to the middle-left from far right politics. Canadians aren't falling for Liberal Party campaign promises on the left and governance on the right in such large phony-majority numbers anymore.
Harper's still a 22% tin pot even with all that Bay Street money behind the reformatories.
DiNovo smears activists some more...
I love the spin - that the people disagreeing with her on Facebook are the ones who are "threatening" her. She begs the people in that conversation on Saturday night, none of whom were doing anything wrong, to stop threatening her and to leave her family alone, and then it gets reported as fact in the mainstream news that activists engaging her on FB threatened her and her family. They say nothing about her freaking out and calling people fascists and idiots even though it was in the same thread.
Sorry, but this sucks. She knows, or at least should know, damn well that none of the NDP supporters talking to her on Facebook in those threads was threatening her.
It's a smear, and she's complicit in it. And this is the second smear. She smeared activists first in the legislature, then smeared them again when they tried to raise objections to the first smear.
She's lost any and all respect I held for her.
Actually that is a complete fabrication of her comments. The only person claiming that the threats were made on Facebook is the headline writer. She is quoted as saying emails and phone calls to her home and about commenting about them on Facebook - not that threats were made on Facebook. Much different than the spin you are trying to get away with.
Nonsense Michelle.
Please do reread what I said above regarding the stalking and harassing on Facebook.
You have issues with what she did state it a couple of times politely on her wall if your are "friends". You have issues beyond that you take it like a mature adult to her constituency office, and deal with it there. Even if you have to picket said office to get your point across.
just as if there are seriosu issues here at babble you take it to the mods by email, you do not harang all over the place. If you do your threads get shut or you get banned.
going beyond that is bullying stalking and harassment. Just as if you and a friend were having a fight, you do not repeat phone call them.
Plus I have absolutely no doubt that some who were her facebook friends also targeted her at home or through pm's. Fuck I know the pm's I get here ffs over much less.from supposed allies.
And my saying so is not smearing anyone.
Exactly Remind. And more to the point, we don't know the whole story, only what's been seen so far.
Did they threaten Cheri and her family? For some reason I wouldn't be surprised if it is true. It wouldn't be the first time that rightwing provocateurs infiltrated a leftwing cause. Any whacko can sign up for an internet account or make anonymous phone calls and leave threatening messages on someone's answering service.
Quote:
Actually that is a complete fabrication of her comments. The only person claiming that the threats were made on Facebook is the headline writer. She is quoted as saying emails and phone calls to her home and about commenting about them on Facebook - not that threats were made on Facebook. Much different than the spin you are trying to get away with.
Sorry, I was editing as you were posting, Life. I'm not trying to get away with anything.
In that discussion thread on FB on Saturday night, she suggested that the people who were posting in it were the same people calling her house and threatening her family. Then she begs those people, in that discussion thread, to stop sending her threatening e-mails and calling her house.
Just read it. You'll see it. Then the article writer picked that up as if it was fact that the people on Facebook were the ones calling her house and threatening her - because that's what she accused them of doing that night. This is what she wrote to the people who were discussing this on her Facebook wall:
"White boys...love it! was it one of you that called me and threatened me?"
"And again, someone is calling my home. Leave me, my husband and my children alone. As Tarek Fatah said, 'Good luck with the fascists!'"
"Enough! Just no more threats. ... All I ask is that you leave my family alone. I'm happy to meet you face to face just no more email threats and nonsense."
"My reason in starting this up was to ask you to leave us alone. I haven't slept in a week and the calls keep coming even though I'm out of the country. Please...enough."
So I'm sorry, but I'll stand by what I said. She was clearly accusing the people who were engaging her on Facebook of making threatening calls to her family and sending her threatening emails.
Hey when's the next electoral stooge-off in Ontario?
And again I will state I have absolutely no disbelief in thaccepting a premise that most likely one of her 4,000 friends you stated she had on FB, did phone her house, and did perhaps call/email and make threats. Not saying that they did, just saying I would not be surprised to find out.
However, having said that, that indeed is NOT what she stated, by your own quotes even michelle.
Her first comment was a question, asking if it was one of her " FB friends", then she states someone is, which I indeed take to mean that she knows even if it is not one of her firends, that someone is watching her words and will hear somehow through the public networking via internet, her entreaties to leave her family alone and stop with the home phone calls.
Afterall michelle, you knew to be watching her wall when she was making the entreaty, so how was it that you knew, or indeed that anyone knew?
we knew here cause rasmus was busy playing TMZ, making sure we knew.
All right, whatever. If Elizabeth May had said it, I highly doubt you'd be so defensive. You don't have any problem with internet pile ups on her, as I remember from the endless vitriol you participated in when you didn't like something she'd said quite a while back, and you certainly weren't open to accusations of sexism when she was being (rightly) taken to task for what she said.
I didn't "know to be watching her wall". I happened to log onto Facebook and saw it happening live on MY NEWSFEED, not because of rasmus. He posted it here a good hour or two after DiNovo already deleted the whole thing. You've said you aren't on Facebook, remind, so maybe you should consider not coming up with silly conspiracy theories when you have no idea how the site works or what you're even talking about.
Anyhow, I've said what I have to say. You have fun, now.
You're wrong remind. You clearly are not reading what is right in that link. She went off like crazy over and over again about "stopping the threats" and not one of those people were threatening her. Not one. Read it and please, tell me who is threatening her. Since when is dissenting a threat? FFS. This is a big issue for activists. She went off the deep end. Sometimes people do. She should apologize and turn in whatever e-mails and PM's she may have gotten to the police. They can deal with it.
This is fucking ridicules. Cheri self-destructed. Period. This whole my party right nor wrong is bullshit. We want accountability from the Liberals and the Cons right? well we sure as hell should expect the same from those we vote for.
She screwed up huge. First with the support for Shurman and now this.
Yeah, that's pretty shitty. But I'm glad she's made some new friends.
Really remind, you should have an understanding of how FB works, how the news feed works, and how others interact. Her entire exchange appeared on anyone's wall who was on her friend's list, and likely the friends of the friends she has. That is how FB works.
If I post something on my wall, it shows up on all my friend's newsfeeds, where they can respond to it, like it, or simply read it. That is how it works.
oh goodness, the conspiracy theory, don't look here marginalization of vioice propaganda combined with CoU speaking down, how blessed am I?
My indicating the attacking and stalking of CDN has got nothing to do with her political affiliation, and neither actually does my dislike of EMay have anything really to do with the Green Party, I disliked her long before she was Green leader, going back to when she was just the lowly head of the Sierra Club, and also your subsuming to accusations of partisanship at play, discredit your stance even further.
Nor have I participated in internet pile up on EMay, as I have never trapsed around the internet trashing her, though I must say I do reserve the right to do it here though. This being the only place where I discuss politics publically online.
Nor do I say it is her fault, that the mainstream media are covering a story on her antics. :rolleyes:
Now having said all of that I admit, I was being a tad smeary, when I made the statement about why were you watching her FB wall, as I knew you would challenge it, thus affording me the opportunity to drive the point home that you made just as spurious of an accusation against CDN, by your stating above she was complicit in planned action with the BBC and the Conservatives, against you, the IAW activists and indeed apparently Palestinians too.
And frankly, though I am no fan of CDN's, I do not for one minute believe she does not care about humanity. As one would have to not care, in order to be so complicit.