babble-intro-img
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.

A word of thanks

89 replies [Last post]

Comments

George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007
quote:

So lets face the facts, either the antiwar movement was effective at drawing attention to the issue, and then succesful at lobbying the NDP to take that stand, which in turn (according to your assertion) forced the Tories to set a withdrawal date, and was effective, or it was not effective.


Or, to vie with the above complex strand of reasoning...perhaps the antiwar movement members themselves took their lead from people who took their cues from historical CCF/NDP positions on the subject of war, and the first cause was actually J.S.Woodsworth on the parliamentary vote to go to war in 1939, and Tommy Douglas's 1970 rejection of the War Measures Act.

There's been a strong, anti-war tradition throughout the party's history. I remember joining a few thousand chanting folks on parliament hill singing "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today." And then there was that walkabout in front of the Spanish embassy protesting something by Franco.

Too complex? Not if we're talking about the cerebral processes at work among the moral minority. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
quote:Originally posted by George Victor:


Or, to vie with the above complex strand of reasoning...perhaps the antiwar movement members themselves took their lead from people who took their cues from historical CCF/NDP positions on the subject of war, and the first cause was actually J.S.Woodsworth on the parliamentary vote to go to war in 1939, and Tommy Douglas's 1970 rejection of the War Measures Act.

There's been a strong, anti-war tradition throughout the party's history. I remember joining a few thousand chanting folks on parliament hill singing "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today." And then there was that walkabout in front of the Spanish embassy protesting something by Franco.

Too complex? Not if we're talking about the cerebral processes at work among the moral minority. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Well right. But its silly to assert that the parlimentary process is effective, but then opine that public sentiment and preassure are inefective. Because we all know that parties (such as they are these days) closely gauge public sentiment in determining how they establish policies.

In fact the OP, which TCD is "defending" in fact more or less states this point itself.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007
quote:

Well right. But its silly to assert that the parlimentary process is effective, but then opine that public sentiment and preassure are inefective. Because we all know that parties (such as they are these days) closely gauge public sentiment in determining how they establish policies.


Yep, I'll never forget the reaction of the great unwashed (nominal New Democrat supporters) who condemned Tommy Douglas for his rejection of the War Measures Act.

Oh, the moralists crawled down a few months later, but not the great unread, whose moral position can never be questioned. But that's the dilemma for New Democrats, cue. Too goddam many of the populist flock don't read. (And may I say that your position generally assumes that they do??? Or can?
Or do I have that wrong?)


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
I would say that the issues are issues of principles. Principles are founded on political philosophy. Moral guidance comes from there. Action from analysis based in those principles.

Douglas clearly saw that the "war measures act" was an overeaction and an abuse of power because he had a fairly clear set of principles to guide his analysis. Therefore he was able to lead on the issue.

Douglas was not alone in this movement, but actually part of a wider movement called the left, which shared fundamental philisophical ideas.

I don't see a lot of leadership coming from the upper echelons of the NDP, and rather now it floats in a populist vacuum. Its the difference between building a movement, and presiding over a sentiment.

And, I reject categorically, arguements that are based on the idea that there is a 'flock' that does, or can not, or will not read as elitist. I think Douglas would agree with me on that score. He was after all a proponent of the expansion of free public education.


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007
quote:

Douglas clearly saw that the "war measures act" was an overeaction and an abuse of power because he had a fairly clear set of principles to guide his analysis. Therefore he was able to lead on the issue.

Douglas was not alone in this movement, but actually part of a wider movement called the left, which shared fundamental philisophical ideas.

I don't see a lot of leadership coming from the upper echelons of the NDP, and rather now it floats in a populist vacuum. Its the difference between building a movement, and presiding over a sentiment.


Douglas had a "fairly clear" set of principles? And his stand that October day lost him a lot of voters because of the vast ignorance that is promoted by a right-wing media.

Unfortunately, it's also "sentiment" that the cons work on with their huckster advertising practices, made possible by deep pockets and a lot of chamber of commerce member benefactors. That's what the great unwashed is awash in.

It's not being elitist to say that newspapers and magazines have been replaced by the boob tube. Just another fact.

No, cue, we can bellyache about the situation until hell frosts up, but to blame New Democrats for not assuming the role of martyr that you fancy, in this socio/political environment, makes no sense. It's a frustrating situation, but made more painful by your unfair accusations. Take a vacation in Cuba when cold weather hits and reflect, over a Cuba libre, what they have had to put up with there. Now there's determination and self-control !

Well, all this thinking has had the desired effect of bringing on sleepiness. It's been a bad day and I couldn't shut down the gray matter. (or is it grey?)
G'nite.


madmax
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2008
It is clear to this observer and relatively new poster to Babble, that the NDP campaign, did pay attention to many of the posts and comments on this forum. (I know that the CPC, LPC, pay attention to posts and comments on other forums I am on)

It is ironic to me, to hear some partisan critic engage in questioning the success of the NDP campaign. On and off topic, spinning while getting trapped in his own words. That is to bad because this thread was simply a thank you to the readers and posters here on babble.

With that, some people don't know when to quit, or that the election is over.

I appreciate the thanks given on this board. I like another poster look forward to at least two other threads with thanks from the campaigns of LPC, GP.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ]


It's Me D
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2008
quote: It is ironic to me, to hear some partisan critic engage in questioning the success of the NDP campaign.

Who are you talking about now? Cueball is a partisan critic? For what party? Or is every critic of the NDP an enemy partisan now?


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
quote:Originally posted by George Victor:


Douglas had a "fairly clear" set of principles? And his stand that October day lost him a lot of voters because of the vast ignorance that is promoted by a right-wing media.

Unfortunately, it's also "sentiment" that the cons work on with their huckster advertising practices, made possible by deep pockets and a lot of chamber of commerce member benefactors. That's what the great unwashed is awash in.

It's not being elitist to say that newspapers and magazines have been replaced by the boob tube. Just another fact.

No, cue, we can bellyache about the situation until hell frosts up, but to blame New Democrats for not assuming the role of martyr that you fancy, in this socio/political environment, makes no sense. It's a frustrating situation, but made more painful by your unfair accusations. Take a vacation in Cuba when cold weather hits and reflect, over a Cuba libre, what they have had to put up with there. Now there's determination and self-control !

Well, all this thinking has had the desired effect of bringing on sleepiness. It's been a bad day and I couldn't shut down the gray matter. (or is it grey?)
G'nite.

What are you talking about?


George Victor
Offline
Joined: Oct 28 2007
quote:

What are you talking about?


Getting you into a more reflective, less ill-mannered mode mate. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]


Brian Topp
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2006
quote:Originally posted by Malcolm:
It was, overall, a very well run campaign, Brian.

But I gotta say, the number of times I found myself cheering what you had to say was a little distressing to me. And possibly to you as well.

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]


Not at all brother. Compared to the complexities of Saskatchewan politics and governance, these ten-province three-territory polylingual five-party federal contests seem simple(r) and much easier to find common ground on!

all the best bt


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
quote:Originally posted by George Victor:

Getting you into a more reflective, less ill-mannered mode mate. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

What precisely was so unmannered in my question:

quote: Good to see you post in your official capacity.

Some of the capital "D" defenders of the NDP have been spinning this election as a success based on the seat count, but it seems to some of us that this is more spinning of wheels, given the fact that the party did not rise more than a smidgen above its last result, and in fact lost overall votes.

Recently you posted a letter you wrote after you admitted to wanting to "barf" (euphemistically) on one of Canada's only established non-partisan left wing journals because of some commentary critical of present NDP policy positions. You spoke at length about "voting to win" as the key to succesful implimentation of policy, noting past NDP achievements as a result.

So. How is that working out for yah?

Perfectly civil really, considering the tenor the statement of Mr. Topp that I a referring too, where he thought he would like to "barf" on This Magazine for having the termerity to publish criticism of the NDP in its pages:

quote: I sent the letter below to the editor of "This Magazine" after barfing on their current issue. Looking forward to seeing if they print it:

Dear "This Magazine" (Re: Laxer article on NDP)

Nor is it unmannered in comparison to TCD's ad hominem attack which immediatly followed my quite reasonable question. But of course my experience with partisans is that they generally "wear rose coloured glasses but are blind in one eye."

Your missive in no way answers the essential question raised by Mr. Topp's interventions on this web site, and that is simply despite the supposed value implied by a "pragmatic" and "realistic" approach that year after year has seen the NDP slowly shred anything recognizable as a principled left wing stand on the issues (to the point now where the NDP leader is promoting "tough on crime" policies, even) because that is supposed to pay off in some kind of electoral progress, no such thing has actually happened.

The NDP after 30 years of retreating on core principles associated with left wing philisophy, for the sake of positioning itself for imminent electoral victory is still mired below 20 pecent mark of both opinion polls and electoral results.

The suposedly pragmatic strategy championed often under the flag "of running to win," has failed. The fact of the matter is that the NDP lost, yet another election, and in fact did not even measurably increase its vote share.

Rather than thanking people here, I am suprised he is not apollogizing.

I see, despite the fact the Topp seems more than capable of dishing it out in the case of Laxer and This Magazine, he has, as I predicted, not responded to the direct question about the recent failure of the NDP in the last federal election.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
quote:Perfectly civil really, considering the tenor the statement of Mr. Topp that I a referring too, where he thought he would like to "barf" on This Magazine for having the termerity to publish criticism of the NDP in its pages:

I don't blame him for wanting to "barf". There's nothing wrong with people engaging in some constructive criticism. But This Magazine put a picture of Jack Layton behind bars as if he had been a convicted rapist on the cover of the magazine - which i thought was a gratuitous nauseating display that added nothing of any value. Then the publish a recycled article by Jim Laxer that was virtually identical to the article he published in the Walrun a few months earlier, which in turn is identical to what he keeps writing in his blog and which in turn is identical to what he had to say when he ran for and lost the NDP leadership in 1971 to David Lewis and subsequently got expelled from the party along with the rest of the Waffle crowd.

Constructive criticism is one thing - but reading some incoherent regurgitated crap that is the same recycled argument that was used 37 years ago - is worth "barfing" over.

Laxer seems like he can't forgive the NDP for wanting to win an election and take power. He'd rather that the party be some esoteric freak show that plays the role of being some quaint ideological bookend that everyone can look upon like some endangered species.

If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
Wrong, you have been regugitating the arguement for a softer core, "pragmatic" and "realist" policy position, on the premise that this would show net gains, to which Laxer has been responding for the last 30 years. My point is that your position is neither pragmatic or realistic, as 30 years of electoral defeat has shown.

Moderator alert: Clear Red-baiting in progress.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
It has given us net gains. In 2000, the NDP had 8.5% of the vote and 13 seats. Now we have 18.25 of the vote and 37 seats. I call that progress. I don't see the Communist party of Canada having any election results to brag about.

Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:
If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us.


Moderator alert: clear redbaiting in progress. Is there anyone in the NDP who simply can not get away for completely vapid ad hominem partisan attacks?

I'd like that comment expunged. People were just getting used to the idea that I am a Liberal, now, 30 years behind, as usual, Stockholm wants to tag me a Communist because he has no arguments other than flag waving.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


RosaL
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2007
quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:

If anyone seriously thinks that the NDP would do better in elections by adopting the kind of Stalinist policies that Cueball advocates - we need only look at how many votes the Communist Party of Canada got to know how far that would get us.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

Surely you are not so naive as to think that, under the present system, a party's vote count is a function of its policies.

PS: Calling Cueball a stalinist - or an advocate of stalinist policies - is ridiculous beyond belief.


KenS
Online
Joined: Aug 6 2001
Amazing how one little yapping poodle manages through sheer volume to dominate these conversations.

Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
Ad hominem.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
maybe while we are at it, i can complain about your "orange-baiting"??

There is nothing wrong with being a Communist. Its a perfectly legitimate ideology - even if its been a total failure everywhere its been tried.

If Communism isn't the right word to describe the ridiculous policies you seem to advocate - what would you rather they be called? I assume you regard "social democrat" or "progressive" to be insulting words to describe "petty bourgeois reformers" - so those words are out - I suppose if you were called an 'anarchist" you might scream that you were being "black-baited" (black being the colour that anarchists favour).

so what will it be?


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
It will be discussion based on something other than name calling. Stockybaba have ever even read anything I have said about Stalin, or Lenin for that matter?

I have nearly 20,000 posts on this board. Please find for me the posts where I advocate for the implimentation Stalin's policies, or say anything more positive about Stalin, other than the fact that he seemed to be a capable adminstrator.

And when did I suddenly become the topic of this thread? Why of course, when you had no arguements available.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


RosaL
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2007
quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:

There is nothing wrong with being a Communist. Its a perfectly legitimate ideology - even if its been a total failure everywhere its been tried.

I know this is off-topic but I weary of this. Here's William Blum:

quote: no one seems to notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century was either bombed, invaded, or overthrown; corrupted, perverted, or destabilized; or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement – from the Russian revolution to the Vietnamese communists to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to Salvador Allende in Chile to the FMLN in Salvador – not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home. It continues today with Washington's attempts to subvert the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, and, of course, still, forever, Cuba.

Imagine that the Wright brothers' first experiments with flying machines had all failed because the automobile interests had sabotaged each test flight. And then, thanks to the auto companies' propaganda, the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man [sic] shall never fly.

More here.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


Brian Topp
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2006
quote:Originally posted by Cueball:

I see, despite the fact the Topp seems more than capable of dishing it out in the case of Laxer and This Magazine, he has, as I predicted, not responded to the direct question about the recent failure of the NDP in the last federal election.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Just this once:

I give flames and trolls by anonymous internet posters a pass.


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
Please point out Mr. Topp, how my question to you was a flame or a troll?

What exactly was "flamey" about it?


Bookish Agrarian
Offline
Joined: Nov 26 2004
I have tried quiet behind the scenes complaints to be nice.

But moderators I have to ask publicly- at what point will Cueballs behaviour be dealt with? His gosh, golly gee, I don't really mean the people on babble when I viciously and inaccurately attack has grown very thin and tiresome. He/she is a toxic presence. He/she must be dealt with and his/her constant stealth attacks. There is a clear double standard at play here.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
The term "Stalinist" is routinely used to describe people with a totally inflexible, head-in-the-sand orthodox ideology that features a command economy and crushing of dissent and a derisive attitude towards democratic institutions. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what people think of Stalin personally.

quote:Like many other "-isms" it can be used as a pejorative term when referring to nation-states, political parties, or the ideological stance(s) of individuals, particularly "Anti-Revisionists". It is also used as a pejorative to describe politicians and political groups, Communist or non-Communist, who are perceived as particularly authoritarian or hard-line.

Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
But you don't know anything about "Stalanism", at all.

Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003
quote:Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
I have tried quiet behind the scenes complaints to be nice.

But moderators I have to ask publicly- at what point will Cueballs behaviour be dealt with? His gosh, golly gee, I don't really mean the people on babble when I viciously and inaccurately attack has grown very thin and tiresome. He/she is a toxic presence. He/she must be dealt with and his/her constant stealth attacks. There is a clear double standard at play here.

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

Ridiculous. I entered into this discussion with a perfectly civil post about the recent election failure of the NDP, in the context of Mr. Topp's previous statements about NDP strategy here on this web site.

quote:Originally posted by Cueball:

Good to see you post in your official capacity.

Some of the capital "D" defenders of the NDP have been spinning this election as a success based on the seat count, but it seems to some of us that this is more spinning of wheels, given the fact that the party did not rise more than a smidgen above its last result, and in fact lost overall votes.

Recently you posted a letter you wrote after you admitted to wanting to "barf" (euphemistically) on one of Canada's only established non-partisan left wing journals because of some commentary critical of present NDP policy positions. You spoke at length about "voting to win" as the key to succesful implimentation of policy, noting past NDP achievements as a result.

So. How is that working out for yah?

Mr. Topp seems to think asking him questions is trolling, and has yet to point out where I was 'flaming' him.

I was immediatly attacked by several NDP partisans. Since then I have been roundly attacked in the ad hominem, some more cleverly than others, and some as simple as calling me a "yapping poodle", telling me to "go to Cuba" and calling me a "Stalanist". Your contribution to the ad hominem is somewhat above red-baiting, but gets marks for trying to assert NDP control of the board editorial policy.

And I am the "Stalanist"? Doesn't the NDP have its own board already?

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


contrarianna
Offline
Joined: Aug 15 2006
Hey, what's up Cue, you haven't been called a "Liberal" on this thread yet?

You may think you get off by being called a commie, but I'm sure The People of the Corn can bring it all together into something like:

"Lickspittle troll, yapping running dog Commie poodle of the Liberal Party."


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002
Thanks Brian for coming on and posting. I am glad you pay attention to some of the posts here.

Don't mind Cueball he is constant and unrelenting in his diatribes. The old term for behaviour like his was passive aggressive. He attacks and then sulks when people attack back it is quite funny actually. I would also ask for his banning for trolling but he is sort of an amusing light weight around here.

Go Cueball Go lets see what you can hurl yourself off of this time. He does get full points for many caroms with other posters. Unfortunately this is not a billiards site but a chat forum.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
quote:Originally posted by Brian Topp:
I give flames and trolls by anonymous internet posters a pass.
This from the guy whose OP appeared to be so grateful for all the discussions about the NDP on babble during the election. Evidently the 94% of babblers who post anonymously aren't included in that sentiment (except of course the dogged defenders of the party line against all forms of criticism).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments