Dana Larsen has NDP convention credentials revoked - II

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

I am curious to know if Dana told the NDP about his past and that video before he accepted the nomination to run as a candidate. Has that ever been addressed?

Cueball Cueball's picture

The NDP revoked his credentials because of the video of him smoking pot and driving? I am glad we are getting to the bottom of this, since it seems his activities as a key opposition figure in the NDP is the issue that caused his loss of status at the convention, not the specifics of his behaviour around the convention. This is more or less what people have sumised. The executive laying out the law for political as opposed to procedural reasons, as they have stated.

NorthReport

Cueball wrote:

The NDP revoked his credentials because of the video of him smoking pot and driving?

 

Dana secured the nomination to run as a NDP candididate in the last election.

Did Dana reveal the details of his past including that video to the NDP before accepting the NDP nomination?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Keep at it. It's very revealing. You are telling us that his delegate status was revoked for other reasons than stated. That is precisely what people are saying.

Bookish Agrarian

What the NorthReport has his own views and doesn't speak for the NDP anymore than you speak for independents or whatever it is you are claiming to be this week.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Unionist, you're such a square.

Sometimes I wish I was still a member of the NDP so that I could quit the party every few weeks or so when they do something unprincipled, cowardly and undemocratic in their feeble, craven desire to become 'electable'. I hope that works out for them--surely renaming the party 'The Very Serious Democratic Party of Canada' will help. Never mind policy...

Anyway, I'm suspicious of the phrase 'diversity of tactics' that has risen in recent years when it comes to radical activism, because I'm pretty confident that such a level of sophistication wasn't exactly on Dana's mind when he was waxing eloquent on drug legalization while smoking a beautiful-looking fatty whilst driving. But that doesn't mean that such action is not necessary to the longview of legalizing marijuana. We need only look to the last age of prohibition to see that the irresponible consumption of alcohol (oh those halcyon days), rather than prop up the prohibition movement, perhaps most insisted its repeal. It only pressed how absurd the prohibition of a substance so widely used and so impossible to control its production and consumption that law enforcement had to change its own 'tacticts' to control and observe rather than prevent and prohibit. If anything, public disobedience from the tamest to the most odious and obnoxious trumps political wrangling every time.

That said, boy do I admire Dana for his courage and his conviction. He's done everything by the book, believing in a system that has baffled him at every chance. Here is what I believe, Dana thinks. And I will use the system of social democracy through the party that claims to uphold it the most, and I will change the world. I don't know, sometimes it works, I guess. If anyone can achieve legalization through legal political channels, it's got to be Dana.

The problem, however, isn't 'diversity of tactics'--but the fact that this diversity comes from the same person. We're used to our politicians and lobbyist being cardboard cutouts. They speak only bromides and tripe, and the public can only conceive of them in that role. When evidence arises that suggests multiple dimensions--say occasionally being inarticulate on camera (forgiveable, since he was clearly so fucking high) or even irresponsible--well, that does not compute. No political party would accept Marc Emery as an official delgate or lobbyist (the Marijuana Party obviously excepted), but Dana, who has carried himself with dignity and determination these past years, should be a different story. Well, not in Canadian party politics, apparently.

Unfortunately, Dana carries his conviction in all matters of his life: he writes articles and fiction about it, he sells seeds, he lobbys political parties and occasionally (okay, frequently) lights up. He even believes in legalization of all (gasp!) drugs--something that the Canadian public (encouraged, of course, by the the short-sighted ruling parties (and those who cravenly wait, desperately, in the wings) and the corporate media) finds incongruous. Dana, sadly, is not a one-trick pony with a one-track mind, and so on the stage of electoral politics, he is doomed.

But, as usual, the NDP blind to its own position onthe political spectrum has covered itself in shame and foolishness. It has missed another chance at principled democracy, foolishly clinging to the lie that if it just acts like the other brokerage parties, it can replace them for a few years.

Enjoy the next decade at 20%, Jack, while the chances that your forefather Tommy Douglas jumped at pass you by.

Dana, you have my enduring admiration and respect.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am glad you understand the meaning of the word independent. That is progress. No independents speak for independents. What interests me is how you can have a party of people who don't agree on anything.

Cueball Cueball's picture

20%? Hardly. I pedict political oblivion for this party in 10 years. Moreso, the craven desire to achieve political notoriety and prestige is a personal thing, and not a group endevour necessarily. As we have seen over the last 20 years, many central figures in the NDP have shown little principle and abandoned it at the first possible opportunity, using the plaform of the party merely as a means of starting a career that ended up with them in the Liberal tent. Jack's eagerness showed us that he and others now in control of the party, those who are selecting who can be delegates at the convention, will very likely begin the serious search for a way to combine the parties sometime after the next dismal election results, when the Tories get a majority.

Buddy Kat

What did I tell you Dana in another thread...the ndp just wants the voter support you offer...they don't want this issue tied around their neck at all. Laytons approval rating is up..that's all that counts. This started with the ad that was rejected..then they wait a few days before the big hodown to  mow you down. Now to make sure your mowed down good they keep bringing up the you tube vid....

I don't think any political party is going to budge on this issue at alll ..till little Tommy comes home with ebola after doing some uncontrolled substance and plenty of innocent people from a wealthy family die. Or some little virus infected mexican drug lord sneezes on the pot crop headed for canada..and  everybody in the distribution area gets a virus and a percentage of innocent people die.

There comes a point where waiting for these things to happen shows the true ignorance of people. Dana tried to fix this and what does he get .."A kick in the head"...Don't waste your time Dana on these simpletions.....you should know by now that 2 conditions have to be met in this country before they come to their senses.

1 - the rcmp are disbanded (this is there nest egg)

2- Canadians start dropping like fly's from illicit virus containing drugs via the underground and now un crackable and flourishing economy created by bastard cons /libs. As it is tainted drugs don't count and many believe that is a "comes with the territory" type of situation.Yes many Canadians actually are gleeful that  Canadians die from taking an uncontrolled substance that bypass'e any quality control. Pretty sick ehh! Where is the DPC on this? Muzzling the people trying to stop it!

When their beloved butt kissed virus infected Americans start fleeing in mass amounts across the border I hope these political scoundrels and there ork tools are there to meet them.

Regarding the video they keep thumping...I think it's great ..it shows the total futility of prohibition and how it doesn't work and if Dana is running around doing this , you can just imagine how many other people are doing this also. So yeah lets continue this ill fated road till real bad things happen. Lets keep sticking our head in the sand, and all those people that know all this to be true and think it's funny or not a serious issue better watch their guilty ass's because:

http://www.geocities.com/grasroot2004/BPT/TheFluIsComingForYou.mp3

 

Bookish Agrarian

THIS IS NOT ABOUT DRUG POLICY IF IT WAS THE GROUP WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT THE CONVENTION AT ALL.  LARSEN HIMSELF HAS SAID THAT THE BOOTH WAS ALLOWED. 

THIS IS ABOUT A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF POLITICAL FINANCING RULES THAT COULD CAUSE THE NDP NO END OF TROUBLE WITH ELECTIONS CANADA.  NO OTHER MEMBER OF ENDPROHIBITION HAS BEEN EFFECTED.

WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET ABOUT THAT.

Oh yeah, you are much more interested in finding the flimsiest issue to attack the NDP on.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

I don't think any political party is going to budge on this issue at alll ..till little Tommy comes home with ebola after doing some uncontrolled substance and plenty of innocent people from a wealthy family die. Or some little virus infected mexican drug lord sneezes on the pot crop headed for canada..and  everybody in the distribution area gets a virus and a percentage of innocent people die.

Are we regularly testing, say, melons and tomatoes for Ebola? Is that why we're not all dying of Ebola? Is the fact that I haven't contracted Marburg really because of our hyper-efficient quality controls on imported vegetables?

 Or is there maybe another reason, like, oh, just off the top of my head, maybe these diseases don't spread via Mexicans sneezing on things or something. I'm not a scientician, but it could be worth investigating.

NorthReport

Cueball wrote:

Keep at it. It's very revealing. You are telling us that his delegate status was revoked for other reasons than stated. That is precisely what people are saying.

This is just a simple question. Did Dana, or did not Dana, share his past including the video to the NDP before accepting the NDP nomination?

 

Michelle

Why do you figure that matters to this discussion?

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

This is just a simple question. Did Dana, or did not Dana, share his past including the video to the NDP before accepting the NDP nomination?

 

Yes. They were fully aware of his "past" (it's also his present). He joined the party as an extremely well-known drug legalization activist. And the videos were known as well - they were publicly available in fact. Now, why exactly are you raising that issue here? Even the NDP has never (yet) raised that as a reason to bar him from convention. Kindly explain yourself.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT DRUG POLICY IF IT WAS THE GROUP WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT THE CONVENTION AT ALL.  LARSEN HIMSELF HAS SAID THAT THE BOOTH WAS ALLOWED. 

THIS IS ABOUT A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF POLITICAL FINANCING RULES THAT COULD CAUSE THE NDP NO END OF TROUBLE WITH ELECTIONS CANADA.  NO OTHER MEMBER OF ENDPROHIBITION HAS BEEN EFFECTED.

WHAT DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET ABOUT THAT.

Oh yeah, you are much more interested in finding the flimsiest issue to attack the NDP on.

The timing of the booth being "approved" shows clearly that there was a lot of discussion about what to do about Dana. The booth being offered on the same day he was told his delegates pass was revoked speaks volumes. For one thing it was clearly a sop thrown out to create plausible deniability. But wait? The booth is approved just days before the convention? You mean that the NDP is so disorganized that people don't know that they are bringing all their advocacy materials and paraphanalia only days before they are to arrive? I don't think so.

NorthReport

Who said it did?

However Dana's candidancy caused a lot of grief in some quarters, and damaged the NDP, in the last election.

Rather than start up a new thread about it, I thought I would ask the question here.

Damned if you do, or damned if you don't here, eh. Wink

Why is there such a silence about it? It is a basic straight forward question, so why would there be concerns about answering it?

.

Cueball Cueball's picture

There isn't any silence about it. People are very well aware that the history of Dana's activism has everything to do with the loss of his credentials, and that this was a "political" use of policy in order to silence him personally, and had little or nothing to do with the specifics of "vote buying".

All of this alleged "vote buying" was done in the open, many many months before the convention. All that Levigne and company needed to do was send him a warning and state the policy openly. No they waited until the last moment to bring the boom down.

Bookish Agrarian

You know this how?  You know they applied in time do you?  You know if the hall - which will be a finite amount of space wasn't previously booked and maybe someone cancelled.  You know every single detail apparently - which is truly amazing.  You know that the right hand had any idea what the left hand was doing - which has never been my experience in large events of this kind.

Oh yeah I forgot you have an extra special top secret earphone thingy that lets you know the details of things without ever having been there or involved. 

There have been all kinds of out there booths at conventions for decades - this is nothing new.  Get on with it and make up some other spurious bs to attack the NDP over.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

 

Why is there such a silence about it? It is a basic straight forward question, so why would there be concerns about answering it?

.

I just answered your question. Are you reading - or only writing?

By the way, did Jack Layton reveal his past on drug legalization? His support for POT-TV? His collaboration with Marc Emery? When he was already the leader of the NDP? Were you aware of this? Should Jack be allowed to register? Should he be allowed as an observer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpPfYe1a6Qg

 

lombar

"However Dana's candidancy caused a lot of grief in some quarters, and damaged the NDP, in the last election."

 

Yes it did. 

1) the party brass knew of his past and  details, gave a pass then revoked it later (betrayal)

2) Didnt investigate a potential candidate (incompetence)

 

So ya, that whole episode demonstrated that the NDP cant be trusted and is incompetent in its vetting process.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You know this how?  You know they applied in time do you?  You know if the hall - which will be a finite amount of space wasn't previously booked and maybe someone cancelled.  You know every single detail apparently - which is truly amazing.  You know that the right hand had any idea what the left hand was doing - which has never been my experience in large events of this kind.

Oh yeah I forgot you have an extra special top secret earphone thingy that lets you know the details of things without ever having been there or involved. 

There have been all kinds of out there booths at conventions for decades - this is nothing new.  Get on with it and make up some other spurious bs to attack the NDP over.

 

Sure, the booth was booked at around the same time as the application for the "thank you" ad that Dana tried to place in the convention brochure. Seems like plenty of time in advance to me. Are you saying they don't know how much space they have in the hall? That is was completely booked and Dana was just waiting for a late availability or a cancellation... and you know all this how?

All kinds of booths, and no one knows until days before the event that they have been approved or not? You want to run the country?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 

Why is there such a silence about it? It is a basic straight forward question, so why would there be concerns about answering it?

.

I just answered your question. Are you reading - or only writing?

By the way, did Jack Layton reveal his past on drug legalization? His support for POT-TV? His collaboration with Marc Emery? When he was already the leader of the NDP? Were you aware of this? Should Jack be allowed to register? Should he be allowed as an observer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpPfYe1a6Qg

 

Laughing

Wasn't the moustache interviewed on Pot-TV? The same news source that thought it completely appropriate to have editorialized advocacy for smoking dope under the influence of marijuana?

Bookish Agrarian

Actually Unionist what Larsen himself has said was that he assumed they knew.  That's not the same thing.  You can argue that that should have known, or done due diligence, but those are different things.

As for his remoarse or not I have not been able to find confirmation of what Michele said.  My recollection is that Larsen was remoarsful for having caused problems with the NDP campaign (including his own obviously), but not for the actual stunt of driving while stoned.  To me that is what he should have been remoarsful about.  The careless endangerment of others.  I also find the narcisistic demand that Layton ask him to resign personally and hold his hand in the middle of a national campaign breath-takingly self-centred.

Had he come out and said it was a very, very stupid thing to do and I enormously regret it I don't think there would have been much of an issue.  But I honestly do not remember that ever having occured.

However, none of this has anything to do with the offer of a financial reward for supporting a particular resolution. 

Bookish Agrarian

Cueball wrote:

 

Sure, the booth was booked at around the same time as the application for the "thank you" ad that Dana tried to place in the convention brochure. Seems like plenty of time in advance to me. Are you saying they don't know how much space they have in the hall? That is was completely booked and Dana was just waiting for a late availability or a cancellation... and you know all this how?

All kinds of booths, and no one knows until days before the event that they have been approved or not? You want to run the country?

No I am saying that booth rental space is often booked way in advance of events like these because there is always high demand.  While I have never organized an NDP convention I have organized large national conventions and we routinely had to turn away potential vendors (that's what a booth holder is called regardless of whether they are selling or advocating).  There will have been a very firm deadline to book a space and even then it would still be first come first serve.  So you have no idea if they in fact tried to book after the available space was filled.

It is not unusual for someone to back out at the last moment for all kinds of reasons.  It is entirely possible that this is exactly what occurred. 

Your claims of some vast conspiracy are absurd.

Bookish Agrarian

You are getting feebler and feebler. 

Next you will claim the NDP is the cause of all evil from global warming to ingrown toes, to nuclear proliferation because they ran out of papertowels in the bathroom.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Heh.

Then they should have been able to provide a flat no. Or a provisional yes, neither of which seem to have been forthcoming.

So, the NDP is so incompetent that it can't organize the space at the convention properly so that people have fair notice if their table has been approved, and it waits many many months, up until the date of the convention to make its ruling on the issue of the alleged attempt at bribery to make its decision. I thought Jack was all about "reasonable and competent."

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am sorry, I was well aware that Dana was offering to help delegates who supported his position to get to the convention a long time ago. I am surprised that this was not reported and dealt with immediatly. I didn't pay much attention to it, since helping people who agree with you to go to a political event is indeed a common practice. Why repeat what has already been said so well before:

Le T wrote:

This is actually a great example of how drug laws are applied too. The dominant decision makers use their rules when it suits them. So, Dana offering airfare to a delegate that can not afford to go is "anti-democratic" but a rich uncle/father/mother/union buying their kid a plane ticket is "democracy in action". Fuck that shit. The NDP (or whatever stupid-ass-navel-gazing-focus-grouped name they waste their time inventing) has no idea what democracy means.

Likewise its absurd that the NDP organizers don't give some kind of reasonable notice to vendors about their bookings until days before the convention. Given the trouble that Dana has had with every single aspect of his advocacy, wherein every single aspect of his campaign has been scrutinized and vetted with unusual prejudice suggests that there is a specific attempt by the executive to shut him up.

Caissa

I don't believe in coincidence. The timing of both acts was deliberate.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Of course. One, Dana is stripped of his delgate status, two, he is finally approved for his booth. The second is clearly an effort to deflect the criticism that the judgement on his delegate status is politically motivated.

Bookish Agrarian

Yes the vast NDP consiparcy has lined up against this one person who just happened to have been violating some of the rather serious portions of our political financing laws.

Next the conspiracy plans to move onto a fellow in Wawa who has been advocating all munciplaities must have a really big goose statue.

Cueball Cueball's picture

The NDP must have known many months ago that they might be applying this aspect of their policy on delegates. Its quite clear that they did not do something about it until now in order to avoid a messy appeal, wherein the NDP brass would be forced to make its case that what Dana posted was out of line with convention practice, and that it was indeed in contravention of the law as they suggest.

Bookish Agrarian

Or maybe it just was noticed.  I am on babble frequently and I didn't see it.

But then I am only a junior member of the conspiracy. 

Currently I am making notes on a woman in Moose Jaw that has been advocating that all place names in Canada be changed so that they reflect a part of the anatomy of either an animal or plant.  For some reason the conspiracy can't figure out she is totally opposed to the use of any fish anatomy names.  Damn splitter!

Cueball Cueball's picture

Advocating for liberalization of drug laws is hardly a minority position in this country. Nor is Dana and unknown person in NDP circles, and so on and so forth. I would not be suprised at all if the facts of Dana's alleged attempt to buy votes, was indeed forwarded by someone on this site. Entirely possible, given the vitriol displayed against him by some here.

HeywoodFloyd

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Yes the vast NDP consiparcy has lined up against this one person who just happened to have been violating some of the rather serious portions of our political financing laws.

You know, it isn't like people will disagree that the NDP has the absolute right to bar delegates. Your defense of the very flimsy excuses just makes it sound like you can't admit that they can make mistakes or act with less than pure reasons.

A party can't be "right" all the time.

HeywoodFloyd

For example, look at the AB PC's. Before the last election they disallowed a nominated candidate because he would cause nothing but grief for the party. They said this openly and said that they had the absolute right to do so. No excuses.

That's how you deal with these things.

Bookish Agrarian

Oh thank you Mr Conservative worker.  Yes your views are completely clear of any bias.  rolleyes

I happen to agree with the decision and think the obvious attempts to spin this as some kind of consipracy absurd.  I have also stated I think he could have been granted Observer status without any fuss.  For all I know maybe it was offered and Larsen turned it down.

By the way I just heard back from another member of the vast NDP conspiracy to ruin the world.  Apparently there is a woman in Cornerbrook who wants to change the national anthem to "Four Strong Winds"  She has moved far up the priority list.

HeywoodFloyd

Take it easy BA. Attacking the messenger doesn't make your message stronger. I've tried to do what you're doing now. Defend the indefensible when it comes to the party. Looking back I sound like an idiot. So take a breath.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I thought Heywood's observation was extremely cogent. You seem to be of the opinion that the NDP operates its internal political discourse without any cogent sense of direction, as if is has the political will of a cockroach, and operates entirely on the force of instinct. Lopping off Dana just days before the convention was an excelent way to avoid a long drawn out drama, and discussion, like the one we are having here. But have it your way, the party elite is entirely made up of guileless idiot savants.

NorthReport

 

Quote:
"However Dana's candidancy caused a lot of grief in some quarters, and damaged the NDP, in the last election."

 

Yes it did. 

1) the party brass knew of his past and  details, gave a pass then revoked it later (betrayal)

2) Didnt investigate a potential candidate (incompetence)

 

So ya, that whole episode demonstrated that the NDP cant be trusted and is incompetent in its vetting process.

 

 

I see so that the candidate has no responsibility in this.

Thanks, that's what I figured.

This is just another excuse to try and bash the NDP.

And I wonder if the party actually did know, as they are not all-knowing about everything in spite of what some people say. Wink

 

Bookish Agrarian

Did you know there is a man in Port Burling who believes that all cats should be called snookums?

Time to pass this on to the vast NDP conspiracy.  We can't have people talking baby talk with their cats - how could we convince them to emulate our evil ways in our evil plan to destroy all that is good and progressive when they are saying things like "come here whittle snookums mommy's got a twasty tweet for ums".  It is hard to convince people to destroy all progressive things when they are playing with a cuddly wuddly kitty winks.

Twirls handlebar moustache 

Bookish Agrarian

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Take it easy BA. Attacking the messenger doesn't make your message stronger. I've tried to do what you're doing now. Defend the indefensible when it comes to the party. Looking back I sound like an idiot. So take a breath.

Your presumption is that it was wrong - I don't agree. 

And that it is indefensible - I also don't agree.

I have said I think their erred in not allowing Observer status - although we don't know that they didn't. 

All we know is the Larsen tried to enter an area meant for delegates only.  No one else who was not a delegate would have been allowed there either.  That could only have been done in a deliberate attempt to be disruptive when other things are going on and are as or more likely more important than his singleminded obsession with legalizing far more than a bit of pot like herion, meth and so on.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Cueball wrote:
Of course. One, Dana is stripped of his delgate status, two, he is finally approved for his booth. The second is clearly an effort to deflect the criticism that the judgement on his delegate status is politically motivated.

Possibly, but really, there is no tension between having an eNDProhibition booth and ejecting Dana. In fact, they are in unison. You see, the NDP is happy to have a legalization contingent withing the party, bringing members and votes and so forth. As long as that position remains a minority within the party and does not make serious inroads toward what the party perceives as an unelectable policy. Dana, unfortunately, was all too successful. Hence, his barring and the reinstatement of a--now-impotent--legalization table.

ETA--why does a deliberate electoral strategy have to be caricatured as a 'conspiracy'? When the Conservatives come up with a policy that will clearly win voters in Quebec at the expense of other provinces' interests (say, the Maritimes), but defend it by saying it will make Canada stronger, do we call that a 'conspiracy' or 'spin'?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Of course. One, Dana is stripped of his delgate status, two, he is finally approved for his booth. The second is clearly an effort to deflect the criticism that the judgement on his delegate status is politically motivated.

Possibly, but really, there is no tension between having an eNDProhibition booth and ejecting Dana. In fact, they are in unison. You see, the NDP is happy to have a legalization contingent withing the party, bringing members and votes and so forth. As long as that position remains a minority within the party and does not make serious inroads toward what the party perceives as an unelectable policy. Dana, unfortunately, was all too successful. Hence, his barring and the reinstatement of a--now-impotent--legalization table.

Well, no CF. According the BA, the NDP operates internally without any forthought or direction. Things just kind of just "happen". Perhaps this is part of the reason they are percieved as incompetent.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Take it easy BA. Attacking the messenger doesn't make your message stronger. I've tried to do what you're doing now. Defend the indefensible when it comes to the party. Looking back I sound like an idiot. So take a breath.

Your presumption is that it was wrong - I don't agree. 

And that it is indefensible - I also don't agree.

I have said I think their erred in not allowing Observer status - although we don't know that they didn't. 

All we know is the Larsen tried to enter an area meant for delegates only.  No one else who was not a delegate would have been allowed there either.  That could only have been done in a deliberate attempt to be disruptive when other things are going on and are as or more likely more important than his singleminded obsession with legalizing far more than a bit of pot like herion, meth and so on.

Like what? The name of the party?

Bookish Agrarian

Catchfire wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Of course. One, Dana is stripped of his delgate status, two, he is finally approved for his booth. The second is clearly an effort to deflect the criticism that the judgement on his delegate status is politically motivated.

Possibly, but really, there is no tension between having an eNDProhibition booth and ejecting Dana. In fact, they are in unison. You see, the NDP is happy to have a legalization contingent withing the party, bringing members and votes and so forth. As long as that position remains a minority within the party and does not make serious inroads toward what the party perceives as an unelectable policy. Dana, unfortunately, was all too successful. Hence, his barring and the reinstatement of a--now-impotent--legalization table.

ETA--why does a deliberate electoral strategy have to be caricatured as a 'conspiracy'? When the Conservatives come up with a policy that will clearly win voters in Quebec at the expense of other provinces' interests (say, the Maritimes), but defend it by saying it will make Canada stronger, do we call that a 'conspiracy' or 'spin'?

The vast NDP conspiracy to destroy progressive everything from bridge to scanning has become aware of a faction centred in Winnipeg.  This faction has been putting up turtle crossing signs along roadways to prevent carnage on the road.  The evil plan, which I can reveal here, is to bring them into the NDP only to convince them to paint their signs orange.  At which point the crossing signs will also be utilized to assist frogs in getting across the road.

Laughs evilly while rakishly adjusting hat

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
All we know is the Larsen tried to enter an area meant for delegates only.  No one else who was not a delegate would have been allowed there either.  That could only have been done in a deliberate attempt to be disruptive when other things are going on

 

Don't rule out the possibility that he was totally baked and thought he saw a giant cookie or something. Surprised

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Of course. One, Dana is stripped of his delgate status, two, he is finally approved for his booth. The second is clearly an effort to deflect the criticism that the judgement on his delegate status is politically motivated.

Possibly, but really, there is no tension between having an eNDProhibition booth and ejecting Dana. In fact, they are in unison. You see, the NDP is happy to have a legalization contingent withing the party, bringing members and votes and so forth. As long as that position remains a minority within the party and does not make serious inroads toward what the party perceives as an unelectable policy. Dana, unfortunately, was all too successful. Hence, his barring and the reinstatement of a--now-impotent--legalization table.

ETA--why does a deliberate electoral strategy have to be caricatured as a 'conspiracy'? When the Conservatives come up with a policy that will clearly win voters in Quebec at the expense of other provinces' interests (say, the Maritimes), but defend it by saying it will make Canada stronger, do we call that a 'conspiracy' or 'spin'?

The vast NDP conspiracy to destroy progressive everything from bridge to scanning has become aware of a faction centred in Winnipeg.  This faction has been putting up turtle crossing signs along roadways to prevent carnage on the road.  The evil plan, which I can reveal here, is to bring them into the NDP only to convince them to paint their signs orange.  At which point the crossing signs will also be utilized to assist frogs in getting across the road.

Laughs evilly while rakishly adjusting hat

Vast conspiracy? Not at all. The flailing and panicked reaction of a not very political astute party which is deseprately trying to make itself politically relevant by aping its so called competitors on the off chance that enough Canadians will accidentally mark the wrong slot on their ballot, because the parties are indistingushable.

Bookish Agrarian

Cueball wrote:

Like what? The name of the party?

Oh I don't know crazy things like job creation, environmental protection, universal health care, access to education, immigration issues, food and farming policies, poverty, equality issues, care and dignity for seniors and so many more. 

But apparently, according to you, the only issue that matters and makes you a progressive is whether someone can legally shoot smack in the foodcourt at your local mall or open up a meth cooker on a bicycle cart like one of those popscicle ones.

Bookish Agrarian

99

Cueball Cueball's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Like what? The name of the party?

Oh I don't know crazy things like job creation, environmental protection, universal health care, access to education, immigration issues, food and farming policies, poverty, equality issues, care and dignity for seniors and so many more. 

But apparently, according to you, the only issue that matters and makes you a progressive is whether someone can shoot smack in the foodcourt at your local mall.

The issue is party democracy. I haven't said anything about smack. Speaking of democracy, is deliberately slandering someone who disagrees with you, in this case myself, by saying I am advocating that people be allowed to openly shoot up in public "democratic"?

Is there no ditch you wont wallow in?

Pages

Topic locked