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
A yes, Cueballs falls back on calling another a "red baiter", when he refuses to answer the question. How am I red baitor if your not even "red? But you did say you were going to vote Liberal or Green this time didn't you? Like just before the election, when you were like so mad at the NDP for not like being...revolutionary enough for you? And like, the arguments you and a few others constantly make places the only meaningful choices between "socialism" and "capitalism", no? I can read between the lines but I'm sure I can find examples of just that in the last week or two. Heck, Spector himself implied as much in his smear here about any "vague progressive" being allowed to publish here. (why is the NDP any different, correct?) So I'm trying to use this as an opportunuty to point out some of the real distinctions that may exist between her and others here. Care to back up what was being debated here (and too often elsewhere ) or do you want to fall back on name calling and innuendo again?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
The media needs to be continually exposed for the frauds that they are. I guess her editorials need the slamming adjectives to sell the spurious spin
Try rereading what I wrote, within the context and target clearly made, you know the actual meaning of that word? Or is trying to make yourself the blameless victim again your only tactic left?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
Must. Protect. Rabble.
[img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
All I can see is that you engaged in a completely off topic ad hominem smear, and then when challenged on this you then snuck back into your hidey-hole and demanded that I start talking about Alice Klein.
In what possible way to my (or M Spector's) specific party affiliations, or lack thereof have to do with this thread topic, and Alice Klein? You are trolling and trying to derail this thread, because it annoys you that not everyone is jumping on the burn Alice Klein bandwagon, in favour of your political party.
So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me.
Nor is it about M. Spector;
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Cueball is apolitical but reserves the right to dwell on anti-NDP rhetoric, whether it's bullshit or half-truths or direct intent to misinform. Everyone should realize this by now
Not at all. Try arguing the point, instead of the person.
Of which you only snipped the bold. JFTB was responding to posts above derailing the thread with respect to a carbon enviro-piss. You took it completely out of context. I'm not sure why you've chosen these bait and switch tactics but it's unbecoming of you.
Churley lose but her "strategic voting site" contributed to the underlying meme of strategic voting; the main message is vote liberal, the rest becomes cluttered noise.
In manufacturing consent, Klein setup the Dion liberals as the fallen hereos as our only choice in defeating Harper.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]
Lead the way, oh so innocent one.
What was your point again?
I know JFTB had a good one in this thread.
What was yours?
I made the point that Klein's arguement is nothing but a rehashing of the NDP position on the Greens, but from the Liberal standpoint. It has no content, nor does the critique offered in the OP.
It is being said that Klein is a Liberal, who opposed the NDP. The NDP is by definition a "progressive". Therefore Klein is anti-progressive. If Klein is "anti-progressive" then she should not be promoted by this web site.
The root assumption, since there is no discussion regarding Klein's positions on the issue, is that the NDP is the definition of progressive, and therefore the content of this site. Opposition to it, is therefore anti-progressive.
The OP is nothing but a cheap attempt to make the NDP the benchmark standard of what should and should not be defined as "progressive" and therefore allowed on the board.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
The point is that strategic voting is miscarriage of democracy - and the Liberals piss poor record on the environtment while in power for twelve years. Promoting those bunch of crooked liars and their big business and banking agenda has no place in a progressive forum. The green shift was part of that party's overall shit show which some of us here refused to and continue to refuse to buy into.
In what possible way to my (or M Spector's) specific party affiliations, or lack thereof have to do with this thread topic, and Alice Klein? You are trolling and trying to derail this thread, because it annoys you that not everyone is jumping on the burn Alice Klein bandwagon, in favour of your political party.
So what if I am either a "revolutionary or a Green/Liberal" or whatever you think I am. Who cares. This thread is not about me."
Not too swift today are we? MY POINT was that YOU were the ONEs who keep framing the argument into that "yer either a 'revolutionary' or a Green-Liberal" type. Perhaps I might have made it clearer by adding NDP to Your usual Green-Liberal...tepid 'progressive' smears. Now, are You or anyone else here suggesting that the presumed NDP hacks here are no worse than a known Liberal party, care to back that up by showing how well her writing or beliefs compares to others published here? I assume rabble.ca still has limits on who they consider progressive, so lets go into a bit more, in manner that other readers can see the logic of. If not, then stop trying to put my own arguments down to baseless smears, or give it up, ok?
Asserting this idea puts any opposition to the NDP or its leader, at this site, out of bounds, regardless of who it comes from, Alice Klein, or myself.
There is nothing "left" or "right" wing about strategic voting per se. It is an arguement about the mechanics of politics. It is not something that defines one as progressive or not. Klein is arguing for strategic voting. This does not by definition make her a Liberal, it is merely the fact that she is a Liberal that she is advocating it at this time.
There is hardly any difference between an arguement that opposes stratgic voting, and one that argue that a party is invalid because it is splitting the vote. NDP'rs often challenge the validity of the Green party, on the grounds of voting "mechanics", based on the idea that the Green split the "left" vote.
The bulk of Klein's piece is about voting mechanics, not about policy. And the same is true of the OP. This is not about what are and are not progressive ideas, and what should and should not be allowed on this site because it conforms to a certain standard of left analysis, it is about asserting a partisan preference, based on the assertion that the NDP, and no one else, is progressive.
I pointed out for example, that Kleins position on Israel, is substantially better than much of the NDP and lightyears ahead of Pat Martin.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
If the "strategy" is to get "progressive" politicians could you tell me why the LPC would even be a consideration?
What is an "NDP columnist"?
But Klein's not running for office and the party she recommends' policy for Palestine is worse than the one she pillories.
I don't get it Cueball, you're all over the place?
[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Asserting this idea puts any opposition to the NDP or its leader, at this site, out of bounds, regardless of who it comes from, Alice Klein, or myself."
Not near that simplistic, and not what i saw being argued If some known Liberal party of Canada hacks get featured here regularly, starting with writing the already staple corporate drivel on how its the NDPs fault again for electing Harper then I think JbtB has fair reason to be upset. This has been done to death here already, and IMO refuted many timnes already, although I suppose its possible that this new progressive geature writer hasn't even read rabble.ca.
There has been countless other critical-of NDP pieces published here without much todo, by other people who actually have the nerve to identify as left-of-NDP and noone I recall questioned there right. (though possibly their reasoning) So, the question again is how far to the right is rabble willing to stretch the already bland 'progressive' label for potential writers and on what actual basis is that already abused term judged upon now? ( I do believe that such a word is a valid description, for some) Now onto other things.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
My personal view is that the idea that the NDP is a progressive party is also an urban legend.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
You know, like, an article, like, slamming Dion and exalting the 'stache. Oh and written by someone with a website to shill.
Huh. Are you always this obstinate. Like Erik asked can you answer the freakin question?
So which party is progressive Mr. oh so Partisan?
It's like pulling teeth getting a real opinion from you, not blather.
No discernable difference between the NDP and the NDP? Thanks Sherlock.
No of course, the correct line is not that it is the NDP's fault that Harper got elected for splitting the vote against the Liberals, but the Green Parties fault for splitting the vote against the NDP.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]