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
Niki's comments on education and First Nations rights were as good as I've heard any MP make. Niki also recieved an A+ (as Kim points out above) from the CJPME on her Middle Eastern foreign policy. But I suppose that doesn't warrant a mention from some.
I think politicians will say whatever gets people to trust them and vote for them. Then something comes up like Libya and all of that goes out the window because then real powers will dictate their actions not what the voting suckers think they stand for. But I have no doubt her comments 'were as good as I've heard any MP make'. You think that means something. I don't.
There's no coming back from what occurred in Libya. It's a grotesque and unsalvageable error in judgment made all the more grotesque by the superficial pleasantries exchanged hereabouts. When you have innocent people shredded to pieces, and someone who supported what was from the beginning an all too obvious outcome drops in to offer up a few words on the matter, to essentially say 'woops, I won't be supporting that again,' what we're actually seeing is banality written in large font all over this latest popularity stunt.
The NDP partisans tender their thick talking points every waking day regarding what they're willing to accept on the road to power, without impediment. I'm certainly not baffled as to the reasons why, and I suspect others aren't either.
Not baffled. Just continually disgusted at being trapped in unending ethical "triage", going along to limit as much as one can the ubiquitous greater evil in politics. Representative democracy as we have it, particularly with the magnetic pull of the right that drags even socialist parties toward untenable positions, needs to be fixed. PERHAPS PR could help free us of this and weaken the power of leaders and caucuses.
Jack Layton was opposed to the mission in Khandahar. With him it was always the 'wrong' mission, as they're were other missions in that country by his estimation, such as those undertaken by the more peace-loving ISAF formations from NATO. Specifically we refer here to the reconstruction and security battalions operating in quieter locations, that were better suited to NDP sensitivities and posturing for the benefit of the base no doubt.
There's very little intrigue as to what type of fools they take everyone for, with everything being in such plain view.
Having been mainly an observer all these years, I can now say I am relieved to see the Jack Layton hagiography relaxing a little, with more space for frank discussion of the centrist, accommodationist (some might say pragmatic/opportunistic) positions the NDP leadership has taken, particularly on foreign affairs (dropping withdrawal from NATO, supporting various forms of militarization, compromising baldfacedly on Afghanistan, ... slippery slope that not so magically has led to a predominant silence on Gaza and the occupation, kneejerk repetition of pro-Israel mantras, cheerleading on Libya and now, outrageously, on Syria)-- in reality, since Broadbent's leadership, if my memory serves me well. I'm not pinning the shift on Layton, or even McDonough. Not to excuse Ashton or any MP, but much of what they say and do is due to the centralization of authority and power in the party, which has developed copy-cat fashion like the LPC and the various incarnations of the Cons - dare I say patriarchal? (ooooh... arch feminist reference... will I get slapped for it?) We need to see a true democratization of party processes, especially if the NDP wants to build solid foundations with politically savvy progressive Québécois, socialists, FN, youth, feminists, queers -- voices other than the dominant alpha males' need to be privileged for a change.
But I also confess I hadn't been following with great attention, so I stand to be corrected. (It is babble, after all, so I don't know whether I need to apologize for thinking aloud.)
I think some of us have voiced our concerns equally across all the leadership threads. If you are implying we are picking on her Niki you are mistaken.
Niki was on P&P a few minutes ago. Good interview, but she's too hyped up - speaks way too fast. Maybe it was just nerves, or maybe too much caffeine.
For God's sake whatever you do don't vote NDP. A pro USA corporate stoogeaucracy in power in Ottawa is worth two in the bush as they say. At least we know where they stand. The NDP is just too risky.
For God's sake never admit you are wrong or don't understand the complete picture.
If you're not more careful the Harper stoogeaucracy could lose the next worst past the post contest in 2015. Then where would we be without a vicious toadie to cow tow to Uncle Sam and the corporatocracy? Careful with that axe, Eugene.
Yes and the NDP at the provincial level have such a grand track record bring in voting reforms into the provinces they control.
Politics is all about gaining power and then holding on to the power for as long as possible.
If you prefer the vicious toadies in power in Ottawa just say so. But don't mince words.
I do not prefer anyone holding power. Politics is just a game.
I would like if politicans spoke the truth and did not mince words.
Given that, why do you even participate in NDP threads? This is all a game to you?
It is a game I would like to have ceased. Since I am aware that will never happen, I would like to at least see the game changed for the better.
Theyve been able to observe the actual records in power of the Mulroneys, Chretiens, Martins and Harpers. And yet we have full-time soothsayers putting the hex on the NDP. Unbelievable.
So fidel, how do you feel about the NDP's voting efforts on Libya?
Can you lads take your bickering to another thread? Thanks.
Can you lads take your bickering to another thread? Thanks.
Could someone start a thread that's reserved for people in a mood for sparring or horsing around or just getting ugly with others?
How do you feel about a previous Liberal government that would have sent regular Canadian soldiers to a U.S.-led quagmire in Iraq had they not sent the bulk of them to a U.S.-led quagmire in Kandahar?
How do you feel about Canada's trade deal with a narco regime in Bogota, or the fact that our corrupt stoogeaucrats in Ottawa did some fine kissing of Yanqui ass when they recognized a corrupt and brutal regime in Honduras as a favour to Uncle Sam?
How do you feel about the grinding poverty and basic human rights violations in Afghanistan 30 years after western meddling began?
How do you feel about the fact that Canada's NDP didn't have anything to do with creating Al-Qa'eda in the Maghreb? What do say to the fact that the NDP had nothing to do with fomenting spread of militant Islam in Asia and Middle East since the 1950's? That's a steaming pile of doodoo to want to lay at the feet of the first NDP opposition party in Canadian history, don't you think? Gadaffi was torturing Libyans with help from the CIA and rest of his sword gang pals, we can be sure. The NDP had nothing to do with that, either.
I was merely trying to defend Niki Ashton from the wild conjecture and heresay that was allowed to continue after she'd gone. It requires no real courage or savvy to attack an elected politician who, really, has nothing to do with the Sword Gang's manouverings in North Africa. No matter which way the NDP voted, or even the vicious toadie conservatives calling all the shots for that matter, the Gladio Gang were going to bomb Libya regardless. Canada is merely a third rate nation when it comes to backing illegal colder war manouvers. It's all Ottawa has ever done. The Parliamentary vote which our rabidly anti-NDP friend continues referring to meant absolutely nothing to the actual outcome in Libya. The CIA, Brits, and French etc were going to ensure that their Al-Qa'eda commander tookover "security" in Tripoli either way, and now they are supporting the same Al-Qa'eda leader commanding the bullshit Free Syrian Army stationed over the border in Turkey for a lack of popular support at home in Syria proper.
If one were to be objective it would be valid to ask why the NDP didn't stand against Afghanistan and against Libya. This is really not about Ashton but about the party itself. The BQ had more progressive cred by far on more than one issue where Jack & Co. caved. It pains me to write this
Not to get ornery with Fidel about Ashton, whom I like a lot more than the other candidates, and who I think had to toe the line, as a backbencher. I just wish the more experienced and mature progressives had taken a principled stand; if they had only called in sick that day.
That would not be objective so much as it is misleading half-truth designed to obfuscate and cloud the matter.
The NDP voted consistently against extending any aggressive U.S.-style combat missions courtesy of Libranos and ReformaTories the same on Afghanistan. The NDP are the only party in Ottawa on the record as stating that Afghanistan is a fool's errand and that Canadian troops should be withdrawn from the U.S.-led military occupation. It is cold fact and part of the Parliamentary record that the NDP opposed both the Martin Liberal government as well as the current Harper government's redundant policies on Afghanistan.
The feeble attempts at historical revisionism in this thread are duly noted. There should be a general babble rule against posting false and misleading information.
The NDP Socialist Caucus has endorsed Niki Ashton.