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
So 1.2 million Christian/Catholic supremacists in Ontario must have voted NDP last election then?
And now Pinocchio's Liberals want the NDP to gang up with them in putting the kibosh to Catholic school funding, just in case some miniscule percentage of Catholic/ social democrat fundies happen to be long-time OLPers. Afterall, that 22 percent of registered voter support was earned the hard way.
I still think the NDP should let the McGuinty dictatorship claim all the credit for this progressive maneuver. They deserve it.
That sounds rather patronizing, Cueball.
What would you then say if the Muslim responds by saying "Why not let us decide how best to protect and defend our community?"
When did McGuinty come out against funding for Catholic schools?
Wasnt that Lord's posited title in another thread of the same theme with a difference? - Would the ONDP support the Liberals in the event that executive Liberals decided to actually make an executive decsision on school funding?
Well, you're the expert on patronizing around here, so I guess I'll take your words on it.
But, as for a rebuttal to that, I would probably laugh at them like I know something that they don't. That usually peaks the interest proslethyzing blowhards, and plays well to the audience, because it is the audience I am playing to, not the "convinced". Most Muslims are perfectly happy to send their kids to secular schools, precisely because they are far more concious of the need to integrate their children into the greater whole of Canadian society, and really not all a bunch of xenophobes clamouring for the Qu'ran to be the staple of their childs education.
Probably, making some kind of specific accomodations might be in order too, such as allowing for prayers in schools, during the schools session, at the appropriate times. That would probably do more to sell the whole package, than any appeal to atheist secular deamonology, and "Origin of the Species" thumping.
But Fidel it seems such a critical issue that it must ignite the sleeping majority to vote, no?
C'mon, what are you scared of?
Well said!
According newspaper reports after the election, McGuinty's Liberals won because they did not support expansion of provincial funding to faith based school and John Tory's Tories announced that they would. Apparently this was evidence that Ontario voters are progressive and want to satisfy UN calls for fair and equal funding of a secular public school system one size fits all.
And these were the same newspapers which reported that MMP went down to "resounding defeat" with just
37% support - and the same papers with printed headlines that said: McGuinty's Liberals win by a "landslide" with 42% of the vote. Apparently five percent is the difference between landslide victory and resounding defeat in Ontario.I agree, Unionist!
This is a very interesting study in double-think. In the first instance the poster establishes his point by referring to media reports in the mainstream press, assessing its views on who won the election as credible. In the second instance, the poster then seems to be suggesting that the post-election analysis was flawed in its interpretation of the results, and therefore not credible.
It is almost as if the poster cherry-picks evidence from sources that conform to the views that the poster is predisposed to suppor based on their political alignment, and then dismisses any contrary information as fraudulent because it does not likewise conform.
Could that be the case? Either the source is credible, or not, am I not right?
I think it was a case of more old line party supporters switching votes to the Liberals in the last week of the election campaign.
And I think it was highly unlikely that NDP support would have changed much if Hampton was to have joined McGuinty and Tory and civil liberties groups in forcing school funding to be the main election issue. And apparently more than four million-plus registered voters were not plussed by that political manuevering.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/letters/#celebrate
Ah, but since deJong is an eco-capitalist that must mean the ONDP gets it right.
And they lived merrily ever after, amen
Having policies that don't seems to change the election results doesn't seem to have prevented the NDP from having policies that don't change the election results before. Judging by the results, it would seem that the entire summary of NDP platform policies don't have any impact on the election results at all.
What is your problem with adding this one to the list?
I was trying to validate RP's loaded question. Or was I?
double post
The NDP should be brave enough to see it validated. But I guess you're more concerned about maintaining opposition status.
You rail against the phony-majority, give the electorate a reason to vote.
Not in this lifetime. You're welcome to your beliefs, but there's no way I'll withdraw that statement. I stand by it.
Isn't having the Orange Team in power enough?