Pondering

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Pondering

To be cont.

Pondering

I never ever write introductory posts when I join new sites. I never know what to say.  This can't be an introductory post because I've been here far too long for that. We've already had spats. You've already formed your impressions of me for better or for worse.  I feel like I can be open with you. :)

Threads here always get my thoughts going in a dozen completely off-topic  directions one of which turned into why do I post? One clue resides in my name. I hate choosing names for websites so I often just take the first one that pops into my head. I had recently been on the Ponder site and it seemed as good a name as any. So Pondering I became.  Turns out very apropos as this is a place to ponder all kinds of stuff.

http://ponder.mcgill.ca/

The P.O.N.D.E.R project is a free program aimed at preventing Neurodegenerative Diseases such as Dementia, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

The main objectives of P.O.N.D.E.R are to:

  • Establish research that allows identifying variables that determine what can prevent age-related disease.
  • Document and characterize what is now referred to as successful or healthy normal aging.
  • Identify among the elderly those that are at risk of becoming ill from age-related disease.
  • Prevent the onset of age-related disease in those elderly where it can be prevented through an extensive cognitive training program.

Pasted from <http://ponder.mcgill.ca/project.php>

It's a bunch of games you play and periodically there are games that are "tests".  They are tracking thousands of people to identify cognitive changes.

When I joined babble I didn't really think about why I was joining, I wanted to so I did. No soul-searching required.  Recently the thought popped into my head "Why am I posting?"  (I am an endlessly fascinating topic to myself, and apparently sometimes to others as well.) Anyway, part of the reason is to stretch my mind. Defending my perspective on issues forces me to think more deeply.  I learn new things about myself , others and the world as I go off googling names and what not. I am here to invade your minds. (just joking)

Debating, especially in just one thread, is unlikely to change my mind about anything, especially an issue I feel strongly about, but it does give me food for thought. I am more likely to see the grey rather than black and white. I don't see any need to "come to agreement". I have changed my mind on many topics over the years but it has always been over a span of time not one conversation.

I'm not an activist.  I always have to look up words like neoliberalism to double check their meaning before using them. I'm not all that familiar with Marxism or Communism or even different forms of democracy.  I'm not that interested in studying them either. I came to these topics late in life and it's not necessary, or shouldn't be, for everyone to know about all that stuff. It's possible to recognize injustice and solutions without ideology. If everyone has to be as informed as dedicated activist types for the war to be won then it will have to wait another few centuries.

I think coming to all of these ideas later in life  gives me a unique perspective on the disconnect between activists and the people they fight on behalf of.  That so many disadvantaged people support Rob Ford shows that there is a deep disconnect between activists and the people they purport to be working on behalf of.  I may not speak activist very well but activists don't always speak people very well either. If they did, they would have a lot more support.

Canada is the best country in the world to live in. We have a huge territory with a small population and an abundance of every natural resource necessary to human life and more. We have all the necessary institutions and an educated population. Canada can have a spectacular future of plenty.

I believe we are in a moment of history where transformative change can happen through a (comparatively) non-violent revolution but that the opportunity can be lost. Occupy may have wound down but the dissatisfaction that spawned it is still waiting to be reignited. Neoliberalism was a stealth revolution led by the oligarchy.  Defeating it will take another revolution in the form of deprogramming. (Easier said than done.)

 I don't believe that modern political parties can lead to the revolutionary rupture in awareness needed for transformative reinvention of civilization.  Neoliberalism has made people fear that only economic hardship can follow from environmental protection and social justice when really these things generate wealth. It is environmental degradation and social injustice that cause poverty.

We need a new age of enlightenment that will not be delivered through existing institutions vying amongst one another for power and control.

I have been amused and flattered by some descriptions of myself that I think were intended to be insulting, or at least to express exasperation. I am an idealistic cynic so I am a contradiction. I believe the world Legatta paints is possible within my lifetime.

lagatta wrote:
.... In particular with respect to polluting or otherwise harmful industries. Ecosocialists want to abolish some of these (and yes, there are a lot of auto, arms and other workers in "harmful" industries in their ranks, especially in Europe (the UK and Continental Europe). But the workers must not bear the cost or the brunt of reconversion. They need income protection and often retraining for greener and more socially-useful jobs.

Auto workers' jobs aren't much of a problem, as carfree cities and towns will require far more public transport, and the auto industry reconverted very quickly in wartime. Of course arms workers pose a more difficult problem, but there was a famous case of arms workers in the UK facing redundancies who came up with an array of socially-useful goods their plants could produce, including aids for disabled people, for agriculture and for many other things that are much nicer than killing and maiming people and destroying habitats.

 I recently read the following:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/08/26/the_ideological_roots_of_stephen_harpers_vendetta_against_sociology.html

So what does Harper have against sociology? First, Harper is clearly trumpeting a standard component of neo-liberal ideology: that there are no social phenomena, only individual incidents. (This ideology traces back to Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim that “there is no such thing as society.”) Neo-liberalism paints all social problems as individual problems. The benefit of this for those who share Harper’s agenda, of course, is that if there are no social problems or solutions, then there is little need for government. Individuals are solely responsible for the problems they face.

This ideology is so seductive not only because it radically simplifies our world, but also because it mirrors the two social institutions neo-liberals actually believe in — the “free” market and law and order. Everything is reduced to either a simplistic market transaction or a criminal case. In the former, you either have the money to buy stuff, or you don’t and it’s up to you to get more. In the latter, a lone individual is personally responsible for a crime and is punished for it. Easy peasy. No sociology needed.….

The payoff in all this for Harper and other neo-liberals is that the kinds of injustices this ideology is particularly good at creating are precisely structural injustices. Indeed, one of neo-liberalism’s greatest capacities is to generate systemic inequalities that are not easily identifiable, in fact are rather difficult to discern, on the level of personal interactions and isolated cases. Harper’s attack on sociology, then, should be viewed not only as an attempt to further his ideology, but to cover the social damage that is left in its wake.

Our society does worship at the alter of individual rights and freedoms with the collective portrayed as a machine that only encroaches on those rights. Money is not seen as at all coercive. Corporations also have a right to freedom from regulation which only impedes their ability to succeed. The default state is individual freedom with everything else an encroachment therefore harmful and to be minimized unless absolutely necessary.

A seismic shift in awareness has to happen to force transformative change. I would say that some dramatic world event could happen that will shock people into getting "it" but the crash of 2008 hasn't done it nor the dire straits of many countries like Greece that were pillaged by the oligarchy. The march of ISIS across the middle east caused by the foolhardy invasion of Iraq hasn't unduly alarmed people. The military industrial complex is in full swing. No military atrocity is too great to rationalize. Vanishing coastlines have startled people but they aren't marching on governments in the millions insisting on accelerated change. Collectively we are like First Nations Christians, worshipping at the altar of our destruction.

Electoral politics tweaks the system here and there it doesn't challenge it so I don't feel a person must vote a particular way in order to have progressive ideals. 

Pondering

I believe we are in a moment of history where transformative change can happen through a (comparatively) non-violent revolution but that the opportunity can be lost. Occupy may have wound down but the dissatisfaction that spawned it is still waiting to be reignited. Neoliberalism was a stealth revolution led by the oligarchy.  Defeating it will take another revolution in the form of deprogramming. (Easier said than done.)

 I don't believe that modern political parties can lead to the revolutionary rupture in awareness needed for transformative reinvention of civilization.  Neoliberalism has made people fear that only economic hardship can follow from environmental protection and social justice when really these things generate wealth. It is environmental degradation and social injustice that cause poverty.

We need a new age of enlightenment that will not be delivered through existing institutions vying amongst one another for power and control.

Our society does worship at the alter of individual rights and freedoms with the collective portrayed as a machine that only encroaches on those rights. Money is not seen as at all coercive. Corporations also have a right to freedom from regulation which only impedes their ability to succeed. The default state is individual freedom with everything else an encroachment therefore harmful and to be minimized unless absolutely necessary.

A seismic shift in awareness has to happen to force transformative change. I would say that some dramatic world event could happen that will shock people into getting "it" but the crash of 2008 hasn't done it nor the dire straits of many countries like Greece that were pillaged by the oligarchy. The march of ISIS across the middle east caused by the foolhardy invasion of Iraq hasn't unduly alarmed people. The military industrial complex is in full swing. No military atrocity is too great to rationalize. Vanishing coastlines have startled people but they aren't marching on governments in the millions insisting on accelerated change. Collectively we are like First Nations Christians, worshipping at the altar of our destruction.

Electoral politics tweaks the system here and there it doesn't challenge it so I don't feel a person must vote a particular way in order to have progressive ideals.

 

Pondering

Reserved because it's my thread so I can and I want to keep the first few posts positive.  Eventually I will fill them in on my views on Trudeau and the NDP and anything else I feel called upon to repeat ad infinitum.

 

This way when someone asks me "how can you support the Liberals when------" I can just point them here. :)

Pondering

Reserved because it's my thread so I can and I want to keep the first few posts positive.  Eventually I will fill them in on my views on Trudeau and the NDP and anything else I feel called upon to repeat ad infinitum.

 

This way when someone asks me "how can you support the Liberals when------" I can just point them here. :)

Pondering

Post 60 from http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/current-mess-and-addition-new-f...

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
After calling another poster a jerk you have no ethical standing to play the victim. It just reeks of hypocrisy.

I can handle the juvenile bullying. Some aspects of it have even been flattering. My concern is not that it impacts me but that it impacts the board. The argument gets repetitive as I feel called upon to defend my support for Trudeau or myself in threads intended to focus on other topics. People visiting the board see some of the most active topics are the ones challenging me and my views.

If you want to continue discussing me I have my own thread now:

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering

Juvenile bullying would also be name calling which of course is what you did when you called another poster a "jerk". But of course when you say these comments it's justified. Right?

In my moral code attacking someone is wrong, self-defence is not. I suppose I should have said obnoxious instead but no, I don't find it to be "juvenile bullying" to call a bully a bully or a jerk a jerk.  Jacob started in on me again in post 36 and Baccus confirmed it in the next post.

I caught on that I am getting baited and attacked in almost every thread I participate in always bringing the topic back to my support for Trudeau and my disenchantment with the NDP.  Eventually I decided to call people out the minute they attack me rather than defending myself from the specific accusations. If someone lies about my views I will call them a liar. If they are trolling or being a jerk I will say so to make it clear where the conflict began.

This thread is part 2 of my solution. From now on I will point out I am being attacked and link to this thread to respond.

Hopefully that will prevent the derailing of threads.

 

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

Post 60 from http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/current-mess-and-addition-new-f...

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
After calling another poster a jerk you have no ethical standing to play the victim. It just reeks of hypocrisy.

I can handle the juvenile bullying. Some aspects of it have even been flattering. My concern is not that it impacts me but that it impacts the board. The argument gets repetitive as I feel called upon to defend my support for Trudeau or myself in threads intended to focus on other topics. People visiting the board see some of the most active topics are the ones challenging me and my views.

If you want to continue discussing me I have my own thread now:

http://rabble.ca/babble/introductions/pondering

Juvenile bullying would also be name calling which of course is what you did when you called another poster a "jerk". But of course when you say these comments it's justified. Right?

In my moral code attacking someone is wrong, self-defence is not. I suppose I should have said obnoxious instead but no, I don't find it to be "juvenile bullying" to call a bully a bully or a jerk a jerk.  Jacob started in on me again in post 36 and Baccus confirmed it in the next post.

I caught on that I am getting baited and attacked in almost every thread I participate in always bringing the topic back to my support for Trudeau and my disenchantment with the NDP.  Eventually I decided to call people out the minute they attack me rather than defending myself from the specific accusations. If someone lies about my views I will call them a liar. If they are trolling or being a jerk I will say so to make it clear where the conflict began.

This thread is part 2 of my solution. From now on I will point out I am being attacked and link to this thread to respond.

Hopefully that will prevent the derailing of threads.

 


Your not calling people out your name calling. When Sean caught you repeating old discredited Liberal myths he was calling you out. When you called someone a jerk you were simply engaging in schoolyard name calling. You do no favours for the Liberals when you behave like that.

lagatta

Is simply stating the obvious - that the Liberals are a bourgeois party intent on defending the ruling class - bullying?

I hate bullying, but it usually targets the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed class, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation. Not to mention the homely, the scrawny and the fat.

Not pretty boys (and girls, like Mélanie Joli) who grew up with the proverbial silver spoon. Not their fault; from Robert Owen and Freidrich Engels on, there have been scions of capitalists and aristocrats who have betrayed their class to support the less fortunate.

Trudeau is not one of them. He never stops nattering on about the "middle class" when there is dire poverty, poor infrastructure and systemic discrimination endured by people in his riding, a riding I know well. I lived there for years, now I live a few blocks south of Jean-Talon.

I certainly don't hate Trudeau the way I hate Harper, but he is the other team for the same class.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
Is simply stating the obvious - that the Liberals are a bourgeois party intent on defending the ruling class - bullying?

No not at all. The personal attacks, insults and misrepresentation of my views are bullying. It's harrassment to focus on my support for Trudeau in threads that are not related to that topic as in "how can you support .... and still support Trudeau don't you know the Liberals blah blah blah". I don't blame people for being fed up with the topic of me and my views on the Liberals and Trudeau as the focus of threads.

When I started the thread on Jusin Trudeau's campaign I got the following bizarre accusation:

"Another thread to talk about how bad Harper is and to praise Trudeau. Something we really needed. Pondering you have a opened a thread that looks like its sole purpose is to not talk about the NDP." (http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-campaign-2015 post 9)

That's just harrassment and it happens frequently. Sometimes it's less abrasive but still inappropriate like this in the FIPA thread.

"Funny, the former director of the right-wing C.D. Howe Institute is a top Trudeau advisor and the Liberal candiate for Toronto Centre. If you don't like market fundamentalist think tanks, you are supporting the wrong party."

The FIPA thread has nothing to do with me and my support for Trudeau.

I am hoping the technique of redirecting inappropriate comments about me out of threads will discourage people from making them. If it doesn't it will become obvious which people are disrupting the board.

lagatta wrote:
I hate bullying, but it usually targets the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed class, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation. Not to mention the homely, the scrawny and the fat.

That it was easier for Harper to bully Dion than Trudeau doesn't change the behavior. Trying to bully Trudeau backfires because he is unaffected by it and because he has already made a positive impression on people. The attempts make the attackers look like poor losers taking cheap shots.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Your not calling people out your name calling. When Sean caught you repeating old discredited Liberal myths he was calling you out. When you called someone a jerk you were simply engaging in schoolyard name calling. You do no favours for the Liberals when you behave like that.

Except the myths ended up being true.

There was no reason to "call me out".  I said I thought it was immaterial to the 2015 election but that it is what I personally remembered from that time period. It would continue to colour my personal view of the NDP but I wouldn't be using the argument and didn't intend to defend it.

Sean didn't think that was good enough and attacked my character.

Since then I came across two articles that make it crystal clear the chain of events that led to the final vote was instigated by Layton.

Anyone who lived through that time period knows that many people believed that much progressive legislation, not just the Kelowna accord, was riding on the timing of the election. Even if they concluded that it was still all Martin's fault, they would still remember that it was controversial.

To attack me for trusting my own memory of events, however vague, was completely uncalled for. I went on a fact finding mission and found the facts that backed up my opinion but Sean refused to acknowledge them. He contined to pretend only the non-confidence vote mattered.

I want to point out I did not call Sean a jerk and reiterate that I see nothing wrong in calling a jerk a jerk or a bully a bully. These are behavioral accusations. Attacking people is being a jerk and a bully.

 

Unionist

Bunch of children. I hereby personally attack all of you!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

lagatta wrote:

Is simply stating the obvious - that the Liberals are a bourgeois party intent on defending the ruling class - bullying?

I hate bullying, but it usually targets the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed class, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation. Not to mention the homely, the scrawny and the fat.

Not pretty boys (and girls, like Mélanie Joli) who grew up with the proverbial silver spoon. Not their fault; from Robert Owen and Freidrich Engels on, there have been scions of capitalists and aristocrats who have betrayed their class to support the less fortunate.

Trudeau is not one of them. He never stops nattering on about the "middle class" when there is dire poverty, poor infrastructure and systemic discrimination endured by people in his riding, a riding I know well. I lived there for years, now I live a few blocks south of Jean-Talon.

I certainly don't hate Trudeau the way I hate Harper, but he is the other team for the same class.

Sadly,the NDP natters on about the 'middle class' as well.

I'm not sure about Mulcair's upbringing but I'm sure he wasn't as priviledged as Justin.

BTW,I hate nobody...But I do hate Harper and his brand of conservatism (corporatist SoCon fascism)

When the Conservatives are defeated it will truly be a happy day.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

I want to point out I did not call Sean a jerk and reiterate that I see nothing wrong in calling a jerk a jerk or a bully a bully. These are behavioral accusations. Attacking people is being a jerk and a bully.

 

I never said that you called Sean a jerk. In fact you called Jacob a jerk. Post 41 of the Current Mess.... thread. Not that it matters because you see nothing wrong with it. More to be pitied than censured.

jjuares

alan smithee wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Is simply stating the obvious - that the Liberals are a bourgeois party intent on defending the ruling class - bullying?

I hate bullying, but it usually targets the underdog, the downtrodden, the oppressed class, sex, race, nationality or sexual orientation. Not to mention the homely, the scrawny and the fat.

Not pretty boys (and girls, like Mélanie Joli) who grew up with the proverbial silver spoon. Not their fault; from Robert Owen and Freidrich Engels on, there have been scions of capitalists and aristocrats who have betrayed their class to support the less fortunate.

Trudeau is not one of them. He never stops nattering on about the "middle class" when there is dire poverty, poor infrastructure and systemic discrimination endured by people in his riding, a riding I know well. I lived there for years, now I live a few blocks south of Jean-Talon.

I certainly don't hate Trudeau the way I hate Harper, but he is the other team for the same class.

Sadly,the NDP natters on about the 'middle class' as well.

I'm not sure about Mulcair's upbringing but I'm sure he wasn't as priviledged as Justin.

BTW,I hate nobody...But I do hate Harper and his brand of conservatism (corporatist SoCon fascism)

When the Conservatives are defeated it will truly be a happy day.


True, both parties are developing a defend the middle class meme. Which has to be one of the saddest developments as they abandon the interests of others. Perhaps we can persuade Harper to defend the marginalized in our society.
Just joking.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:
Bunch of children. I hereby personally attack all of you!

As per usual.

Pondering

I support having a police force, a fire department and a military. I am grateful there are people willing and able to do these jobs. Our gratitude should be shown in generosity towards the injured, killed, and their families. I am all the more grateful because I would be extremely ill suited to any of those professions.

I would not urge anyone to sign up because I think  whether or not to serve in such professions is a very personal decision and not one to be made lightly.

That does not disentitle me from having an opinion on where our military is or isn't active. In a democracy it is citizens not the military that decides it's activities.

While I am grateful for your service (assuming you are telling the truth) it does not give you licence to address me abusively.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-liberals-and-ndp?page=18  post 186

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Another nonsesnse reply Pondering; good job!

ETA: I'll tell you why its nonsense, Pondering.

In a recent post, you told me you aren't a Pacifist. Yet, you speak about the use of Ground Troops. Lets think about this.

You have also said you would advise anyone not to join the CF. And you said, you would never join the CF. The ONY conclusion that can be dranwn form your own words is that you want others to endanger their lives, and do your fighting, for you. You expect them to go off and serve, but feel no moral obligation to do so yourself and none of your currently posted words, no concern for their ultimate welfare. What that says to me is you lack Character, and the courage of your conviction. You are "all hat, and no cattle". If you don't understand that saying, ask Trudeau.

Yeah, you stay at home. In the Field, the only person's back you'd have is your own. As a 20 plus year CF Naval Vet, I consider your stance, to say the least, objectionable. It is objectionable, and a perfect display of how not to meet your obligations as a Canadian Citizien. But its OK, you are welcome for my years of service watching your back while you slept in your warm, dry, safe, bed. Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn't expect any thanks, etc., blah, blah, insert counter argument here. Stop posting links directing me how to respond, and try speaking for yourself, directly, without the double-speak and clever banter, just for once.

lagatta

Well, the police do play a role in defending people's lives and personal property, but they are far more gung ho in the defence of those of the wealthy. When my bicycle was stolen (and I had no other means of transport; no, at the time I could NOT afford public transport) they did fuck all.

But police are also scab herders (yep, seen that while organising a union; it is not an academic notion) and were involved in wanton repression agains the Québec spring, which was a glorious social movement that went far beyond the democratic demand for free tuition. More than a few of us who experienced the 1972 general strike (I was still very young then, and not a union member) took part in this great movement 40 years later. The cops kettled us and sent a huge contingent to confront an utterly peaceful group of Red Squares (most of us "of a certain age") in Petite-Italie, I guess they had some nonsensical idea that we were out to trash local businesses where we shop every day.

Supporting "the military" is even more complex, as the right who extol militarism do fuck all for returning physically or psychologically-disabled ex servicepeople. I suppose sovereign states still need a military to defend their borders, but what the hell could the Canadian state do against either the USians to their south or the Russians across the pole? And the Canadian army also invaded Québec in 1970, and Indigenous nations since then.

I defend the rights of all those people as workers, and as injured workers, but as institutions, one has to be more nuanced. If one is on the left, that is.

Firefighters don't really pose the same problem, except in terms of possible inequality of services to rich and poor.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Pondering wrote:

Reserved because it's my thread so I can and I want to keep the first few posts positive.  Eventually I will fill them in on my views on Trudeau and the NDP and anything else I feel called upon to repeat ad infinitum.

 

This way when someone asks me "how can you support the Liberals when------" I can just point them here. :)

[emphasis most definitely added]

That is, perhaps, one of the most novel takes I have seen on the actual nature of the threads here on babble. I was unaware that the site had morphed into one that housed mini-blogs. When one owns a thread, do moderation rights come along with it? I know that individual postings are essentially owned by the individual - hence the abilitity to go back into them and edit them - but an entire thread?

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

To attack me for trusting my own memory of events, however vague, was completely uncalled for. I went on a fact finding mission and found the facts that backed up my opinion but Sean refused to acknowledge them. He contined to pretend only the non-confidence vote mattered.

No, you just found an article from a pundit that misrepresented the facts in the same way you were misrepresenting them. That doesn't prove anything except that pundits often don't have a clue what they're talking about. But we all knew that already so there was no need to reinforce it by linking to another stupid pundit. The FACTS are that the NDP was never in a position to save or destroy that budget. This isn't opinion. It's simple numbers, and you are the one who keeps pretending that you don't know this.

 

Aristotleded24

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Pondering wrote:

To attack me for trusting my own memory of events, however vague, was completely uncalled for. I went on a fact finding mission and found the facts that backed up my opinion but Sean refused to acknowledge them. He contined to pretend only the non-confidence vote mattered.

No, you just found an article from a pundit that misrepresented the facts in the same way you were misrepresenting them. That doesn't prove anything except that pundits often don't have a clue what they're talking about. But we all knew that already so there was no need to reinforce it by linking to another stupid pundit. The FACTS are that the NDP was never in a position to save or destroy that budget. This isn't opinion. It's simple numbers, and you are the one who keeps pretending that you don't know this.

Even Justin Trudeau isn't bringing up 2005-6 to attack the NDP, as he understands he has to move forward and present a vision rather than blaming someone else for his party's failing.

Pondering

lagatta,

The reason I included firefighters is because I would never urge someone to take a job that risks their life. I am sure there are some other jobs like that too. It seems to me that is a very personal decision. The requirement to be willing to attack other people adds another layer that makes it an intensely personal decision. I don't think people should be judged for it either way.

I think a problem is that it attracts people who want to exert power over others and enjoy the thought of violence, many of whom are racist. As you noted, the police are all too often the enemy of the people and yet few would suggest we do away with the police force. The question is how they are controlled and used.

I agree that the question of the military is more complex because in an ideal world they would not exist but for the foreseeable future they will exist. That begs the question of the purpose of our military. Even though peacekeepers have been known to abuse their power and can still be used inappropriately, I would prefer to return to that then Harper's warrior fantasy. Ultimately I would like it even more if we turned to rescue in hot spots and providing humanitarian aid where it is too dangerous for aide organizations to go. We could protect and provide transportation to refugees fleeing violence.We could specialize in extracting victims like those girls that were kidnapped from schools.

Concentrate our hardware investments on protective technologies for Canadian borders, airspace and especially for our coasts. Not to stop a full on invasion but to prevent encroachment and maintain sovereignty.

The theory is that the United States protects us therefore it is our moral duty to contribute to the world militarily in relation to the size of our population.

I reject that notion because the US is the architect of it's own destiny. It created the most powerful military force on Earth and abused it's power causing untold death and destruction while plundering the wealth of countries. We have been complicit at times but we never led the charge and we have often held back. Were it not for the United States the world would be a much safer place.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
I went on a fact finding mission and found the facts that backed up my opinion....

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That doesn't prove anything except that pundits often don't have a clue what they're talking about. But we all knew that already so there was no need to reinforce it by linking to another stupid pundit.

This is not a stupid pundit:

http://rabble.ca/taxonomy/term/309

James Laxer is regularly asked to comment on current national and global issues by the Canadian media and frequently writes columns in major newspapers and periodicals. In 1969, he was one of the founders of the Waffle Group, Canada’s largest New Left political movement. In 1971, at the age of 29, he ran second for the national leadership of the New Democratic Party. In the mid 1970s, James Laxer was a leading crusader against the power of multi national petroleum companies. His books, speeches and television appearances helped lead to the creation of a nationally owned oil company, Petro Canada, established to counter the power of companies like Exxon in Canada. In 1981, Laxer was appointed research director of the federal New Democratic Party. At the end of his two year term, he wrote a controversial, book length critique of the party’s economic policies, charging that they were seriously dated. The report was front page news in Canada and was debated for months in the national media. In 1984, the National Film Board of Canada hired Laxer to be host narrator, for a series of documentaries on the changing global economy and Canada’s place in it. In preparing the series, Laxer travelled extensively in Japan, Europe and the United States. The series, entitled Reckoning, was denied broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because it was seen as too controversial. Instead it was broadcast by a hook up of all the English language educational networks in the country. The series was also broadcast in the United States, as well, by a large number of PBS stations.

This is a history not just an article http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Even Justin Trudeau isn't bringing up 2005-6 to attack the NDP, as he understands he has to move forward and present a vision rather than blaming someone else for his party's failing.

I don't expect it to be a campaign issue and I have said so, but given the The Star's recent article I could be wrong about that. Memories might be fresher than I imagined.

All I ever said is that it affects my own opinion of the NDP.  I was then told I was being dishonest to allow it to continue swaying me because my memories were wrong. The non-confidence vote was trotted out as "proof".

I trust my memories so I went looking for proof that my memories were real and I did find it. While I can certainly accept that some people feel Martin was more to blame than Layton (or even solely to blame) to maintain that the non-confidence vote was the sum-total of what happened is intellectually dishonest.

The article proves that my opinion was shared by many progressives at the time who felt betrayed by the NDP.

Since Sean's attack I have been persistently berated by multiple posters in multiple threads still insisting that I am lying. (as evidenced by Jacob Two Two's comment quoted above)

Sean owes me an apology and confirmation that there was a series of events that justified my memory of events and opinion even if he doesn't agree with my conclusion about who bears responsibility.

Basically, if he really does care about this site, he should call off the dogs.

Pondering

bagkitty wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Reserved because it's my thread so I can and I want to keep the first few posts positive.  Eventually I will fill them in on my views on Trudeau and the NDP and anything else I feel called upon to repeat ad infinitum.

This way when someone asks me "how can you support the Liberals when------" I can just point them here. :)

[emphasis most definitely added]

That is, perhaps, one of the most novel takes I have seen on the actual nature of the threads here on babble. I was unaware that the site had morphed into one that housed mini-blogs. When one owns a thread, do moderation rights come along with it? I know that individual postings are essentially owned by the individual - hence the abilitity to go back into them and edit them - but an entire thread?

Picky picky picky kitty. Maybe I should have said because this thread is about me instead of mine.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g)

The mods can do as they please with me because I can run but I can't hide. They have magic wands. They can wave them and say toodleloo and poof gone I am. They are like benevolent gods, usually very nice but you do not want to tick them off.

Anyone can have a me thread. We are in the forum for them. I highly recommend it. I only wish I hadn't waited so long. I absolutely love me.

I haven't attempted to control anyone else's participation but I do feel quite dominant here so I threw my weight around and reserved 3 spots for myself. Not the worst thing that's happened on babble although I will admit it was aggressive. Nothing like living life in the fast lane and throwing caution to the winds.

In this thread I can be as loquacious as I please because I am the only expert in the field of me.

The only slightly questionable aspect is bringing posts here from other threads because I think that is normally frowned on. Still, I think the mods will tolerate it as long as it is only posts attacking me and I notify the individual where I am responding.

I think it is preferable to disrupting threads by defending myself within them. It's more polite to take it outside.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Since Sean's attack I have been persistently berated by multiple posters in multiple threads still insisting that I am lying. (as evidenced by Jacob Two Two's comment quoted above)

Sean owes me an apology and confirmation that there was a series of events that justified my memory of events and opinion even if he doesn't agree with my conclusion about who bears responsibility.

Basically, if he really does care about this site, he should call off the dogs.

Not okay to open a personal thread and call out someone by name who has not been in that thread and stopped posting here.

I don't owe you an apology for disagreeing with you. I only went after your argument. You have made up in volume for what you could not in logic. It seems nobody can keep up with you as you bury other posters in repeats of the same illogical stuffing while seemingly write full time here. I even wondered at times if you were a moderator sock puppet or paid to do this. You did give a clue in one thread where you said you were speaking as a campaigner.

You established that there are people who wanted to deny responsibility for the Liberal 2006 loss and there have been shoddy opinion pieces (poorly researched or outright propaganda). But there is a difference between facts like voting numbers and opinions written by writers to sell stories. Indeed, some in the NDP or supporters exaggerated the party’s position back in 2005-6. I don't run the NDP or its supporters. But I don't blame the Liberal party for stuff you serve up either.

Interesting that you try to guilt me on caring about babble after gleefully rubbing it in when a moderator came in swearing with a broad personal attack on “veterans”? Why should I care about a site whose moderators would be so rude across the board to any veterans who are concerned about the direction of the place? (And why bother speculating why people leave?) Why should I provide loyalty after getting that as reward for investing time writing for over a decade? It was not the first time that the nastiest stuff in a thread actually came from a mod or that a moderator made a situation worse by reducing a difficult tone into outright swearing. They show through their own participation and attacks what they think of concepts like restraint, respect and moderation.

Note to mods: if you offer any respect or appreciation rather than abuse for the efforts of people who invested in this place you might not lose so many people.

Back to you: I obviously and abruptly stopped posting after that post from a Mod. I would not be back if you had not brought me into this thread. But you "own a thread" and call out by name whomever you want to pick fights with. That is the stuff that could get "veterans" banned.

So, continue your project of turning this space into a Trudeau shrine through your volume of repeated posts (look like trolling to me) if you want. Get applauded for this from the mods. But leave my name out of threads I am not participating in and stop fighting with people who have been driven off the board. I don’t actually care if you ruin it. I have other places I can write including Twitter.

And don't presume I have dogs to call off. My only connection to this place is I invested a lot of time writing here for over more than ten years. I have taken a couple long breaks due to nastiness from the moderators here – no secret they don’t like me. What relationship you think I have with this site I don't know since every time I am involved in a conflict they come in on the opposite side -- no matter what the issue.

At least have the manners to stop talking about me when I am not here. And don’t wait up for that apology.

 

 

ETA I see your latest post is even more interesting calling another person names and haivng this thread as a place to pick fights with people. And anyone who responds to you can get called a problem and banned by the moderators.

The following is truly breathtaking. I am so glad the moderators appreciate your dominance so much that you will now proclaim what has been obvious.

Pondering wrote:

"I haven't attempted to control anyone else's participation but I do feel quite dominant here so I threw my weight around and reserved 3 spots for myself. Not the worst thing that's happened on babble although I will admit it was aggressive."

jjuares

Quite extraordinary actually. This site has taken a very strange turn with one individual simply overwhelming it with ponderous posts. For me I would rather discuss progressive politics rather than have to wade through post after post of dubious integrity . Anyways I won't have to worry about being banned as I take a rest from this place.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

when a moderator came in swearing with a broad personal attack on “veterans”? Why should I care about a site whose moderators would be so rude across the board to any veterans who are concerned about the direction of the place? (And why bother speculating why people leave?) Why should I provide loyalty after getting that as reward for investing time writing for over a decade? It was not the first time that the nastiest stuff in a thread actually came from a mod or that a moderator made a situation worse by reducing a difficult tone into outright swearing.

You know exactly what type of 'Vets' the mod was refering to. The forum Vets that think they are above the Babble policy and who think that their lenghtly time on the forum gives them special privilages.  The post was nothing more than stating no one gets special treatment and everyone should treat each other more respectfully, you're trying to twist it out of context.

Paladin1

 

I wanted to comment on something I read

Pondering wrote:

 That begs the question of the purpose of our military. Even though peacekeepers have been known to abuse their power and can still be used inappropriately, I would prefer to return to that then Harper's warrior fantasy.

Canadian Peacekeeprs was an image pushed by the media to Canadians. I believe it was Mr Pierre Tredeau who first started selling it?

It's a very romantic notion and one that resolantes with Canadians not as comfortable with the typical "warrior" image but it's also a notion built on fallacy. A peacekeeper is nothing more than a trained soldier (warrior) who has been given the job or task of standing in the middle of two people trying to kill each other. The tougher and meaner the peacekeeper the better. You can't put a meek type of person in that position and expect them to survive. Think of a bouncer in a bar, they're usually big tough guys and that's for a reason. When they can't talk someone out of the bar they need to be physically able to pick them up and kick them out.  The same applies for peacekeepers.   Peacekeeping works when both sides respect the peacekeeper and understand that if they start a fight they're going toget beat up for lack of a better word.

I know a quick response will be "but look at Somalia" or a list of attrocities soldiers have done while under the guise of peacekeepers. You wouln't be wrong.  Be that as it may there is not some kind of discrenable difference between soldiers and peacekeepers. The latter is simply one of the many jobs the former can be called on to perform.   I hope that makes sense and doesn't come across as too combative.

Quote:

Ultimately I would like it even more if we turned to rescue in hot spots and providing humanitarian aid where it is too dangerous for aide organizations to go. We could protect and provide transportation to refugees fleeing violence.We could specialize in extracting victims like those girls that were kidnapped from schools.

Rescue type operations are very specialized and not something the military commonly trains for. There is only so many hours in a day and only so much training you can acomplish with a body of soldiers.  It would be impossible to train soldiers to do everything. Soldiers get injured, go on parental leave, get old, get posted away, change jobs.  New soldiers need to be taught how to light a stove int he winter and how to do the basics before advanced training can happen and that takes a lot of time and resources.  We currently are capable of providing humanitarian aid and protecting refugees but that all depends on politics. The government helps countries who have a large voter base back in Canada for obvious reasons; they're not going to send troops and spend money because it's the right thing to do.  We also need a lot of money to train and equip ourselves in order to acomplish those tasks and outside of us being at war the military isn't a priority for money.

6079_Smith_W

Lester Pearson was a prime organizer of the first UN peacekeeping mission in Egypt. He won the Nobel Prize for it.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/suez-crisis/

Peacekeeping soldiers might have two arms and two legs like other soldiers, but the purpose of the mission is very different, and more importantly, it takes its direction from the UN. It's not just a euphemism.

For all the current talk of peacekeeping Canada only has a few dozen peacekeepers in Africa. Haiti was the last large one in 2004.The decline came as Canada became more and more involved in NATO-led military actions rather than UN ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_peacekeeping_missions

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

Peacekeeping soldiers might have two arms and two legs like other soldiers, but the purpose of the mission is very different, and more importantly, it takes its direction from the UN. It's not just a euphemism.

For all the current talk of peacekeeping Canada only has a few dozen peacekeepers in Africa. Haiti was the last large one in 2004.The decline came as Canada became more and more involved in NATO-led military actions rather than UN ones.

 

Right.  It's probably open for debate but the UN would need to adopt NATO style rules of engagement if they wanted to physically save lives from violent offenders.  I've heard a lot of stories of Canadians on UN missions being forced to watch attrocities happen right infront of them and not being allowed to interviene.

 

***I'm bringing the thread off topic sorry, i'll save it for more suitable places.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
***I'm bringing the thread off topic sorry, i'll save it for more suitable places.

No, by all means continue. I have no problem with reading intelligent informed opinions on topics of interest to me. It gives me food for thought.

So, I declare the conversation on topic because a thread about me includes whatever interests me. That's how people can get to know me which is the purpose of an introductory thread.

Don't worry everyone, I plan to write more answers they will just take longer than this one.

 

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Quite extraordinary actually. This site has taken a very strange turn with one individual simply overwhelming it with ponderous posts. For me I would rather discuss progressive politics rather than have to wade through post after post of dubious integrity . Anyways I won't have to worry about being banned as I take a rest from this place.

The ponderous thing is very clever but I don't really believe you.

If you didn't want to read posts by and about me you wouldn't be in this thread you would be in one of the many progressive threads I am not participating in.  You're welcome to stay in this thread but fair warning, I will be here.

If I do happen to be participating in a thread that interests you and you have a complaint about my participation or an urge to bash me you are welcome to come to this thread to express your ire. I promise I won't report you. You can save a link to this post to prove I said so.

Henceforth and forever more I promise not to complain to the mods if I get bashed in this thread by anyone.

susan davis

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Quite extraordinary actually. This site has taken a very strange turn with one individual simply overwhelming it with ponderous posts. For me I would rather discuss progressive politics rather than have to wade through post after post of dubious integrity . Anyways I won't have to worry about being banned as I take a rest from this place.

The ponderous thing is very clever but I don't really believe you.

If you didn't want to read posts by and about me you wouldn't be in this thread you would be in one of the many progressive threads I am not participating in.  You're welcome to stay in this thread but fair warning, I will be here.

If I do happen to be participating in a thread that interests you and you have a complaint about my participation or an urge to bash me you are welcome to come to this thread to express your ire. I promise I won't report you. You can save a link to this post to prove I said so.

Henceforth and forever more I promise not to complain to the mods if I get bashed in this thread by anyone.

really....? not that i would bash but.....

Bacchus

Doesnt mean others wont complain to the mods

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
Henceforth and forever more I promise not to complain to the mods if I get bashed in this thread by anyone.

susan davis wrote:

really....? not that i would bash but.....

Yes really, as long as it is in this thread.

Bacchus wrote:
Doesnt mean others wont complain to the mods

True but I do not believe the mods to be unreasonable. If someone objected the mods might pop in with a warning, as recently occurred in the thread on guns but I doubt it.

I have specifically stated that I will not object in this thread and I have reiterated it so there can be no claims of sarcasm being misread.

Pondering

Sean, you come across as sincere, intelligent, knowledgeable, civilized, and respectful and not just to me. Multiple posters have sung your praises and have even suggested anyone arguing personally with you is automatically wrong.  “Sorry Arthur, you are wrong this time” was enough to shut down Arthur whom I think was going after Debater over something. You are quickly defended by multiple posters when personally criticized. I put a lot of effort into this post and the next because I respect you.

The familiarity and respect people have for you make your attacks all the more powerful – it’s like declaring open season on someone. You may drop the attack but other posters follow me from thread to thread taking pot shots that often misrepresent my views. This creates the impression that I am being disruptive, dominating the board and always talking about myself and pumping Trudeau and the Liberals.

I don't want to accept disrespectful treatment but I don't want to disrupt the board nor be driven off.  I can see why other posters are annoyed when threads turn into personal battles when they are trying to discuss some topic other than me. I don’t want to be defending myself personally in every political thread I participate in.

I am not a mod. I can’t control anyone’s behavior but my own. Everyone gets to start an introductory thread not just me. It occurred to me that if a post is about me, this is where it belongs. I should not be the topic of conversation in any other thread. This spares other posters the tedious task of skimming posts until they find one that is on topic.

I think the mods will let this ride for now because everyone can have an introductory thread and because it has the potential to solve a problem without involving them.  If I take advantage of this thread to start launching attacks on other posters I doubt they will allow it to stand.

I was surprised to read that you feel unfairly treated by the mods. Consider the possibility that it makes you extra sensitive to their intervention in threads. Meg’s comment was blunt but earlier in the year someone told a mod to fuck off and didn’t even get chastised never mind banned so I’m guessing rough language gets a pass around here. Meg wasn’t addressing you specifically but rather a group of posters some of whom seem like they may need or deserve the stronger language. Meg is also human so I think she was expressing exasperation, frustration, and even a little family familiarity.

As an aside, I did not complain to the mods but I was grateful to Meg for her intervention. Other times, not so much. The mods are definitely not always on my side. The mods are human so maybe at times they have shown bias or made mistakes. I think they are unfair on the prostitution topic so I don’t feel favored.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  I even wondered at times if you were a moderator sock puppet or paid to do this.

Think about this for a minute. Why would a moderator do that? Why would they waste time trying to harass posters. I wish someone would pay me to post. Do you think maybe your judgement of the mods is on the harsh side due to historical events? That grand schism thing must have been a doozy of a war.

You haven’t been driven off this board by me nor has anyone else. If anything there is an attempt to drive me off the board by attacking me in multiple threads over the same topics.

My purpose in moving all personal comments about me to here, and inviting anyone who has objections to me to come here, is to avoid any impression of trolling or dominating the board. I am avoiding the NDP nominees thread and the Thomas Mulcair thread for the moment. That is why I responded to the article on Mulcair’s campaign in the Trudeau campaign topic. I tried to stay on topic by relating it to how it would impact Trudeau. I’m not going into the National Daycare Program thread either.

You ask why you should care about this site. You have invested 10 years in building it and you have relationships with people here many of whom would miss you. Despite the problems babble is still valued by people you consider friends isn’t it?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  You did give a clue in one thread where you said you were speaking as a campaigner.

I never said any such thing. I take it you are referring to the thread called “Trudeau campaign 2015”. I don’t want to get dragged into the same discussion in every thread then get accused of trolling. That thread is about Trudeau’s campaign so that is what I discuss in that thread.  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You established that there are people who wanted to deny responsibility for the Liberal 2006 loss and there have been shoddy opinion pieces (poorly researched or outright propaganda). But there is a difference between facts like voting numbers and opinions written by writers to sell stories. Indeed, some in the NDP or supporters exaggerated the party’s position back in 2005-6.

You expect me to judge this man’s work:

And this article:

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

as shoddy poorly researched journalism? On what basis should I make that judgement?

Assume for the sake of argument you are correct and it is all Martin’s fault. It was certainly still controversial at the time and even you confirmed that Kelowna did hang in the balance. Exaggerated or not there was criticism from the progressive community on it. It was not unreasonable for me to remember that during that time I did hold Layton responsible and to trust my memory of events, and it was events, not just an isolated non-confidence vote.

You claim that you only went after my argument but that isn’t true. I’ll put that in my next post.

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/heres-stephen-harpers-plan-to-win-2015-election?page=19

Post 193

Pondering wrote:

I haven't been able to find a record of the actual vote. I haven't used this as an argument in ages and I won't again, because I can't find a record of the actual vote. But, I genuinely believe that I am remembering it correctly and it would have come down to a tie so personally it still affects my perception of the NDP. I remember being dismayed but I wasn't that into politics so the impression I had came straight from the MSM. I would really like to have official numbers from somewhere of how the vote went down.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry Pondering that is a complete cop-out. It is unacceptable. This is a red line for being able to engage.

Don't tell me you can't find this information. It is all on the public record. This is basic research. You have House of Commons records, you have media records, you can even go to Wiki and read the summary and then check the references at the bottom for first hand resources.

To continue to say this affects your opinion of the NDP should erase ANY credibility you have here. Opinions can vary but we should not have to continually debate facts that are on the public record.

This business about the NDP being responsible for Martin's downfall is a piece of Liberal propaganda that has been exposed as a lie. If you want any credibility you have to be willing to work from some sets of facts. The numbers of people for each party in the House is verifiable and it is not too much to ask that you agree with the public record at this point.

Since you admit to having used this argument, you have a responsibility to check the sources and retract it. Otherwise this is just a BS fest for you.

Where someone in the NDP were to lie about facts to make an argument I would expect that argument to be exposed as well. I would participate in doing so. I am tired of this getting in the way of rational cnversation where Liberals here and in other places say the NDP defeated Kelowna etc. etc. etc. Time to ask that people here at least provide the intellectual honesty to admit the most basic political facts of the country in order to have a meaningful and honest political discussion. Starting with how many votes there were in the House in late November 2006 is only reasonable since this is a point of misinformation from many Liberals (not just you) over the last several years.

Tell me you would not be offended by that or not consider it a personal attack. Reread my post, and then reread yours again.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. Insisting the sole issue was the non-confidence vote was a red herring. You knew, certainly know now, that the situation was more complex than that and that many people do argue that Layton was responsible for precipitating the election and it isn’t just Liberals that said so. The Star article shows that it is a common belief not some far-fetched partisan fringe theory.

You ridiculed me and attacked my credibility based on my agreement with a common interpretation of the events of Nov. 2005. There was nothing unreasonable about my memory of Layton’s involvement. You insisted that I go looking for evidence to defend myself or accept your verdict that I lacked credibility.

That was a personal attack. It was unfair because of your stature with some posters here placing more pressure on me to defend myself. It’s the second time you have berated me. I’m disappointed because I thought we had had good conversations prior to that.  Certainly they were conversations I had enjoyed.

The last word is yours if you want it.  

Pondering

This is belligerent and unproductive to respond to within the thread.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-liberals-and-ndp?page=21

Post 213

Arthur Cramer wrote:
But back to the first point, you misrepresented Mulcair's position. He DIDN'T DO what TRUDEAU DID; he exercised BETTER judgement. How could that be possible; Le Dauphin is infaliable, just like the Holy Father, right?

ETA: I noticed no comment on the National Post article. That's kind of odd isn't it? It coudln't be because it expalins what a completely foolish, ill-considered decision supporting the kurds is, could it? Why that would mean Le Dauphin was wrong. He's infallibale right? Just like the Holy Father!

Arthur, this is the title of the thread, so you should be berating unionist not me.

Harper joins U.S. in Iraq, with support of Liberals and NDP

I thought it was true.

Concerning the National Post article. I can't respond to every article link. NorthReport just posted a whole slew of them.  You are not alone. 

I'm criticized for posting too much then criticized for not answering to every point raised by every poster.  I can't do both.

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-campaign-2015?page=6

Post # 65

thorin_bane wrote:

Why didn't the liberals topple the conservatives on any of the 79 consecutive chances they had. Why did the Liberals scuttle the coaltion and be able to govern the country properly, instead of leaving harper in charge with nothing asked for? Thanks for citing promenant liberals while they failed to mention any of their own sins when it comes to harper. Entitled to their entitlements. And still mrs I can't let this drop I am right, the mods won't even warn you about trolling. Thanks MODS, You know my questions won't be answered because that is far more damning than any deflection about the NDP totally like totally destroying the progressive Martin(off shore billionaire) government.

I'm not answering your questions because they have nothing to do with the topic, which is Trudeau's campaign.

I brought your post here because you are accusing me of trolling. Are you suggesting that not answering your questions is trolling?

 

edited to add

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/heres-stephen-harpers-plan-to-...

Sean's post 167 is a good overview on why votes go the way they do.

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-l...

Post 223

Arthur Cramer wrote:
"Pondering",, my dad was first wave ashore at Normandy, second man off his landing craft. He fought his way through France and Belgium. His WW2 Service is no more relevant to this discussion then you dad's; it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here. He was anti war all of his Adult life; would you dismiss him as a "Peackenik", as well?

He wasn't a peacenik during is WW2 service. I never called anyone a peacenik. I referred to the peacenik approach which I define as blind anti-war rhetoric which offers no alternatives.

If he quit the military when he became anti-war then I respect him. If he remained in the military while being unwilling to fight then no, I don't.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
As to "hanging around for a pension", how patronizing, how demaining, how insulting, how patronizing. Well thanks for that comment, that tells everyone who reads that comment everything they need to know about you and what you think of Vets. Hey you Vets, you are collecting a pension, so shut the hell up now. That's shameful, "Pondering".

If someone in the military is unwilling to fight on principle then they are a hypocrite for collecting a paycheque that assumes their willingness to fight. They are deceiving Canadians and don't deserve a pension.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
ETA: Oh, by the way, if you are going to try and use the lingo, at least get it right. It would be pretty hard for a new recruit to pick up a gun, they weigh hundereds of pounds and are called artillery. Going forward, use the proper, accepted, and correct word, weapon, please. Thanks.

No. I am a civilian. If it shoots, it's a gun. In a democracy civilians and politicians determine military involvement.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harper-joins-us-iraq-support-l...

Post 223

Arthur Cramer wrote:
"Pondering",, my dad was first wave ashore at Normandy, second man off his landing craft. He fought his way through France and Belgium. His WW2 Service is no more relevant to this discussion then you dad's; it has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing here. He was anti war all of his Adult life; would you dismiss him as a "Peackenik", as well?

He wasn't a peacenik during is WW2 service. I never called anyone a peacenik. I referred to the peacenik approach which I define as blind anti-war rhetoric which offers no alternatives.

If he quit the military when he became anti-war then I respect him. If he remained in the military while being unwilling to fight then no, I don't.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
As to "hanging around for a pension", how patronizing, how demaining, how insulting, how patronizing. Well thanks for that comment, that tells everyone who reads that comment everything they need to know about you and what you think of Vets. Hey you Vets, you are collecting a pension, so shut the hell up now. That's shameful, "Pondering".

If someone in the military is unwilling to fight on principle then they are a hypocrite for collecting a paycheque that assumes their willingness to fight. They are deceiving Canadians and don't deserve a pension.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
ETA: Oh, by the way, if you are going to try and use the lingo, at least get it right. It would be pretty hard for a new recruit to pick up a gun, they weigh hundereds of pounds and are called artillery. Going forward, use the proper, accepted, and correct word, weapon, please. Thanks.

No. I am a civilian. If it shoots, it's a gun. In a democracy civilians and politicians determine military involvement.

"He wasn't a peacenik during is WW2 service. I never called anyone a peacenik. I referred to the peacenik approach which I define as blind anti-war rhetoric which offers no alternatives."

Pondering, if you arern't calling anyone a "Peacenik", why even use the word? Seriously, you must think I am some kind of rube. Who do you think you're kidding?

"If he quit the military when he became anti-war then I respect him. If he remained in the military while being unwilling to fight then no, I don't." My dad joined the Army in 1941 at the age of 18, on the day he turned 18. I told you he fought Overseas, but you ignored that because it doesn't fit your argument; did you even actually read what I wrote? My Father (blessed be his memory) doesn't need your respect. It doesn't matter what you think. And frankly, you owe my an apology for despoiling his memory.

"If someone in the military is unwilling to fight on principle then they are a hypocrite for collecting a paycheque that assumes their willingness to fight. They are deceiving Canadians and don't deserve a pension."

This one is a real beaut Pondering. I never said, to use your catch phrase that I thought I shouldn't have to fight when I was in the Service; you inferred that. What I said is that in response, to YOUR reply that collecting a pension is hypocritical if you are opposed to "War", the issue is being able to criticize "War" after retirment from the Service. You still haven't addressed my comment in any way. You show a lack of respect for Vets that is abysmally insulting and dismissive, and shows a complete lack of any understanding of what motivates anyone to serve. You need to admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. As above, more deflection and mis-directiion.

"No. I am a civilian. If it shoots, it's a gun. In a democracy civilians and politicians determine military involvement." Now this one, is just plain insulting. I am telling you what we in the Service call it, and that we find it insulting when people use terms incorrectly. OK, maybe I should have put it to you a different way. But your response is the hell with you, I'll insult you whenever I feel like it. Once more, "Pondering", deflection with no substance. So let me ask you something, if someone from the PPCLI came up and asked you to stop calling the PPCLI "Picklies", woudl you? They don't like that because it is insulting to the name sake of the Batallion, Princess Patricia. They pefer the Batallion be referred to as the "Patricias", or as the "Princess Patricias". I guess you wouldn't care, would you? By the way, do you all your Doctor, Doc? Or speaking to Police do you call them, "Coppers". Probably not.

So that is the whole problem with you. You actually care so little about what people think that you feel free to say whatever you want; there is no limit for you. There are no constraints of decency, no demonstration of respect for others, no regret. Yep, you are head strong, but in every way, wrong, and blissful in your ignorance. Frankly, I feel very sorry for you.

By the way, I'm posting this whole thing on the other thread. People aren't likely to come here to read what you wrote and how I replied. And you know that; that's why you try to move conversations here. You don't want others to see what you wrote. Why is that? I want to make sure they see it. I'm not letting you control what people see here.

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
By the way, I'm posting this whole thing on the  other thread. People aren't likely to come here to read what you wrote  and how I replied. And you know that; that's why you try to move  conversations here. You don't want others to see what you wrote. Why is  that? I want to make sure they see it. I'm not letting you control what  people see here.

If people choose not to hit the link I provide maybe it's because they don't want to follow flame wars.

I've done my part by bringing it here.

If other people object to you forcing it on them I suppose they will let you know.

 

Pondering

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"If someone in the military is unwilling to fight on principle then they are a hypocrite for collecting a paycheque that assumes their willingness to fight. They are deceiving Canadians and don't deserve a pension."

This one is a real beaut Pondering. I never said, to use your catch phrase that I thought I shouldn't have to fight when I was in the Service; you inferred that. What I said is that in response, to YOUR reply that collecting a pension is hypocritical if you are opposed to "War", the issue is being able to criticize "War" after retirment from the Service.

If you think I have said something quote me. I am expressing my views not referring to you specifically. Of course vets can be anti-war. BUT, if they were unwilling to fight while they were in the armed forces that would be hypocritical and they wouldn't deserve a pension for having deceived us.

I am saying if someone still is a member of the armed forces it implies that they are willing to fight for the country. I did not join the military and start collecting a paycheque because I am not willing to. That does not deprive me of either my right or my responsibility as a Canadian citizen to have an opinion on when my country does or doesn't participate in armed combat or any other military deployment.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
"No. I am a civilian. If it shoots, it's a gun. In a democracy civilians and politicians determine military involvement." Now this one, is just plain insulting. I am telling you what we in the Service call it, and that we find it insulting when people use terms incorrectly. OK, maybe I should have put it to you a different way. But your response is the hell with you, I'll insult you whenever I feel like it. Once more, "Pondering", deflection with no substance. So let me ask you something, if someone from the PPCLI came up and asked you to stop calling the PPCLI "Picklies", woudl you? They don't like that because it is insulting to the name sake of the Batallion, Princess Patricia. They pefer the Batallion be referred to as the "Patricias", or as the "Princess Patricias". I guess you wouldn't care, would you? By the way, do you all your Doctor, Doc? Or speaking to Police do you call them, "Coppers". Probably not.

I don't know all the proper names for a doctor's tools or a police officer's tools either and I doubt they would be insulted by it. Using the word "gun" instead of "weapon" is hardly the equivalent of "Picklies" or even "Coppers".

 

Sean in Ottawa

I can't respond to your stuff at the rate you can produce it Pondering. I don't know if you are paid to do this, are retired or unemployed donating 10-12 hours a day. You bury opposition in volume.

I don't mind long posts as I write them but you write so many it is impossible to keep up and unlike mine they can't be ignored because they are argumentative and baiting rather than ideas you can take or leave.

Why write a post that takes time to conceive and craft only to have it buried in the next flame war you provoke even if it is not with me. I thought I'd see what it was like to follow an argument with you to conclusion only to see it is a circle without any progress or evolution and no apparent purpose other than to irritate the other side..

I won’t say you are the only one who does this or that you have not been on the wrong end of overly partisan and empty trash talk. But you are the most prolific and least possible to ignore and your engagement does not seem to come from a sincere curiosity to find answers but some dogged desire to deliver dogma. I am not a fan of some of the very partisan NDP comments on this site but I take issue with the fact that you claim to be a minority here and  yet try to insult as many of what you have defined as the majority as you can - perhaps because you enjoy the fight.

Only the people who want to engage in this stuff end up staying. Someone looking for substance would need to organize an archeological dig. If you think this is an NDP site (which it isn't and was never supposed to be) why not engage on ideas that are less liable to rile up days of divisions? Go for topics that will attract people and bring them together or make them think in a less hostile and directly partisan way? What exactly is gained by coming to a place of longer thought and employing the same talking points that can be thrown out in 144 characters or less on Twitter?

You don't know the difference between having your ideas challenged and your person attacked as you made clear in your post 37 of this thread.

The moderators have allowed you to claim a thread as your own without comment and while that is weird it is their job is to drive the site forward or into the ground. I think they are doing the latter. I don’t think you are doing any service by creating a thread you pride in dominating, controlling and calling your own as a pulpit to attack others. Really, if you really own the thread you should be paying Rabble to host it.

As for the great schism – I was around for that but was not personally wounded by either side. My issues with moderation come from more recent examples of the same character as Meg’s intervention which was to be the first to come in and swear at people in a thread, while threatening people and calling a whole class of people on the site names. No, that single example should go in the hall of fame to show exactly how not to moderate. It did not follow a calm attempt to bring order. It was the most aggressive and insulting post on the thread clearly designed to take a side rather than achieve anything else and that was her first foray into the thread. I could never respect someone who calls themselves a moderator who behaves in that way. Beating up whichever side you take issue with is not moderation. You thanking her for that embarrassing display only made it worse. I don’t care if earlier in the year someone told a moderator to fuck off—her approach in that post certainly could inspire such a reply and nothing in the thread justified that from her. It was she who introduced the lovely word “fuck” to the thread after all. That’s moderation by power trip and it would have been unsurprising if the word had been thrown right back at her.

In any event I think you are able to bury any other poster so deep that there is no point being here and this place should just be renamed Pondering's Pond of Ponders or Ponderings' loves and litanies of Liberal leaders.

Pondering

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I think your questions are mostly rhetorical and I did offer you the last word so I will respect that. I'd say we are done anyway.

Paladin1

It's interesting to see how many people make fun of Ponderings name.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Did anyone read the thread title and ask "Pondering WHAT, exactly"?

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

It's interesting to see how many people make fun of Ponderings name.

Not a name -- a handle. There is a difference. And a handle in a place like this can be an anon comment rather than a name associated with a person

pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

It's interesting to see how many people make fun of Ponderings name.

Not a name -- a handle. There is a difference. And a handle in a place like this can be an anon comment rather than a name associated with a person

Not really.  Our handle IS our name.  It's quite personal.

If I started calling you "Shame in Ottawa" and did it repeatedly, post after post, I wonder what your reaction would be.

I can't keep up with her either.  But some of the stuff going on in reaction to her is both juvenile and malevolent.  I find it weird that so many here don't see that (not you, necessarily).

Sean in Ottawa

Not the same thing. My name is Sean in real life. What my parents called me.

I do think there is a difference.

And the handle in this case is designed to have a meaning and people are using that meaning -- to ponder and the connotation is not particularly negative. Also different than turning Sean into Shame.

That said sure there is a limit -- and anything can be turned into harassment.

Still we also have a behaviour that people don't know how to respond to.

It is subjective but I do think there is baiting and antagonistic posts here and Pondering went to overboard enough to confirm a feeling that this is what was going on for some time. The artful turning of conversations, forgetfulness manipulation of logic and taking things out of context led me to be suspicious. And I am also left finding it hard to believe that Pondering really does not know the difference between a personal attack and the attacks I made on her faulty logic which leads me to think that too is a game -- this victim card without a crime.

There is a reason that so many are frustrated and angry or feeling they cannot even engage. And we then get this thread which however it might be technically blessed by the moderators is extremely aggressive in how it is being used and presented.

Pondering is no victim and provokes fights.

Frankly I think  Debater has been harassed -- but I also think Debater enjoys taunting and some posts are meant to get people angry but I have also seen viciously unfair stuff lobbed there. The stuff with Pondering seems not out of proportion to the posting style and aggression generally though.

 

And stuff like this: "Mulcair hasn't said a word about ripping up FIPA and he has expressed support for CETA. He's going to tweak corporate taxes." Three falsehoods in only 22 words. Takes less than three minutes to find specific and official evidence all is false. That is artful.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Did anyone read the thread title and ask "Pondering WHAT, exactly"?

Read the first post and you will find out. The McGill Project is very cool.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Did anyone read the thread title and ask "Pondering WHAT, exactly"?

Read the first post and you will find out. The McGill Project is very cool.

Yes it is and a very worthy inquiry. Also Douglas Institute is a great organization

Pages

Topic locked