quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[QB]And do most people believe the murder and kidnapping of soldiers is child's play?[/URL]
Or do Israelis just not count?
Soldiers getting themselves captured is a result of soldiers napping, not kidnapping. You are confused on this point, still.
Anyone have any audio/video for Stephen Lewis's address? The NDP website has some, but it's just a short clip.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Soldiers getting themselves captured is a result of soldiers napping, not kidnapping. You are confused on this point, still.[/b]
Yeh real confused...I guess its ok then to murder sleeping soldiers aslong as they are Israeli?
I don't see what them being Israeli has to do with it. But other than that the practice of killing sleeping soldiers is an old one. For instance I imagine the Israeli's killed a whole bunch of sleeping Arab soldiers during the suprise attack of 1967... or are you sugesting it is only ok to kill sleeping soldiers, [i]if they are Arabs?[/i]
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]
And do most people believe the murder and kidnapping of soldiers is child's play? Do most people believe the intentional targeting of Israeli civilians with Katyusha rockets should be forgotten? [/URL]
[/b]
Don't be so silly. Nobody is disregarding the rocket attacks on Israeli, see for example Amnesty International's [url=http://tinyurl.com/lb2zr]condemation[/url] of these attacks as war crimes. Murder and kindnapping of ANYONE is a serious offence, and I think would be recognized as such by most on this board. The point you are missing is that it is very difficult to abstract the larger middle-east conflict into this specific event, such that you can point fingers and say that so and so started it - this approach in and of itself is quite silly. You further fail to recognize that about 1200 Lebenase, mostly citizens, were killed, compared to about 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers, who were killed. As if this disparity was not enough, the infrastructure damage to Lebanon in comparison to Israeli, likely dwarfs the disparity in the loss of life statistics.
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Yeh real confused...I guess its ok then to murder sleeping soldiers aslong as they are Israeli?[/b]
Those sneaky bastards! Soldiers are people too and need their sleep like the rest of us.
Why doesn't hezbollah counter with war planes and helicopter gunships ?. Are they cowards ?.
[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]Yeh real confused...I guess its ok then to murder sleeping soldiers aslong as they are Israeli?[/b]
[i]Vehitetu harvotam le'itim vehanitotehem le'mazmerot.
Lo yisa goi el goi herev, lo yilmedu od milhamah.[/i]
sure was a good convention,,,whew!!!!
i think we can agree to disagree about solving the middle east here in the convention thread,, i know you were this close.
i hope others noticed the big plastic pot plant in the lobby of the convention main room entrance.6ft tall i was amazed they had it there and no one saw it.all pot leaves in plastic,,i wish we could post photos here.
I have many pictures of activists/delegates under it as proof ,,,
i mean if we are allowed to just hijack this thread and all......
i have a pet issue my self..
[ 01 October 2006: Message edited by: kulvahs ]
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Since when is it an NDP principle for old, white, straight social conservative men to stifle the voices of youth and sexual minorities in the party?[/b]
Since when were party members supposed to sit on their hands when decisions that effct the party's future are at stake?
I, for one, am glad I don't have to go knocking on doors explaining to concerned parents that their fourteen-year-olds deserve the "right" to have sex with adults. As a socialist, I would much rather spend the next year arguing about solutions to poverty, unemployment, trade and virtually anything else.
With respect to Corvin's reporting, the bias is a little overpowering. Delegates who support the Caucus position are "union-friendlies" and part of a "rent-a-crowd" when they rush in to fight a motion that they oppose or support. Delegates who oppose the Caucus position using the same tactics are noble warriors for a just cause.
I'll let folks in on a secret: if the NDP was really more interested in winning than internal democracy the debate never would have happened. Talk to a Liberal or Conservative activist about what happens at their conventions if you ever have a chance. They don't debate policy. We do. Endlessly.
I'll admit that the party bureaucracy doesn't always play fair - but I think people might want to consider the possibility that the convention supported the Caucus positions because the majority of rank-and-file delegates supported the Caucus positions.
I'll bet you're not biased at all though, are you?
That's right, This is it. Mel Hurtig said when he was involved with the party, Liberals spent a ridiculous amount of time in closed door meetings hammering out which lawyers would get government contracts and which contractors would be given passes to the public troff.
It's easy being an MP for the two old line parties. Who wouldn't want three months of vacation a year, a hundred thousand dollar salary, an automatic gold-plated pension after two terms, a free o' charge gourmet meal plan at the Chateau Laurier and nothing to do in the commons but wear a newspaper over your big head trying to sober up from the night before ?. And then there are the wild parties downtown at taxpayer's expense! My goodness! And wait til they get kicked up to the senate! The good times just never end for good friends of big business and banking elite in this frozen Puerto Rico du Nord
[ 02 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by Is this it?:
[b]Since when were party members supposed to sit on their hands when decisions that effct the party's future are at stake?I, for one, am glad I don't have to go knocking on doors explaining to concerned parents that their fourteen-year-olds deserve the "right" to have sex with adults. As a socialist, I would much rather spend the next year arguing about solutions to poverty, unemployment, trade and virtually anything else.[/b]
Since when did the NDP become a party that works to take rights away from people? You might not have believed in youth's right to make choices, but it was their right under the law, and you are working to take it away. Whose rights will be next?
The NDP wants to stomp all over the RIGHT for allowing 1.4 million Canadian children to live in poverty after 100 years of stoogocratic rule in this frozen Puerto Rico, Tony.
quote:
Originally posted by Is this it?:
[b]
I, for one, am glad I don't have to go knocking on doors explaining to concerned parents that their fourteen-year-olds deserve the "right" to have sex with adults.[/b]
Have you considered staying at home? Please don't knock on my door.
Concerned parents. What a crock. No one even knew what the law said before Harper (that other "socialist") introduced this social-conservative legislation.
This is just the CPC's trying to appear to be progressive on social issues. Mountains and mole hills. Meanwhile, 1.4 million Canadian kids aren't living very well.
quote:
Originally posted by Is this it?:
[b]I'll let folks in on a secret: if the NDP was really more interested in winning than internal democracy the debate never would have happened. Talk to a Liberal or Conservative activist about what happens at their conventions if you ever have a chance. They don't debate policy. We do. Endlessly.I'll admit that the party bureaucracy doesn't always play fair - but I think people might want to consider the possibility that the convention supported the Caucus positions because the majority of rank-and-file delegates supported the Caucus positions.[/b]
My own assessment of the convention, shared by other delegates, was that the policy discussion was a little thin, and I don't think that was an accident. And I'm pretty sure that if the party brass wants to prevent contentious resolutions from being debated (many of the resolutions discussed passed quite easily) they won't be debated.
quote:
If the convention allowed more time on the convention floor for debate of resolutions, and if less time was allotted for multiple people speaking in favour of the same resolution, then we could have gotten many more items debated and passed.
Right on. The kind of rules that allow that should be changed. We used to have a similar dynamic at my union conventions when I first started attending a few years ago. "Contentious" issues were kept off the floor by dragging out non-contentious issues with several 5 minutes speeches.
Some of the changes we were able to implement at convention itself:
1) 3 minutes max per speaker
2) If 3 people speak pro OR con in a row, the chair has to ask for an opposing view or else the question is put to a vote.
3) The resolution's submitting body gets to speak to it first when it make it to the floor.
Contentious resolutions were often killed by moving closure before anyone got to speak in favour.
So if you want a more democratic party, you've got to examine the rules and get them changed to encourage an atmosphere of fair debate (like here on babble!) [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Lazy Tony:
[b]
Since when did the NDP become a party that works to take rights away from people? You might not have believed in youth's right to make choices, but it was their right under the law, and you are working to take it away. Whose rights will be next?[/b]
What is the law now. Got a link to the actual text?
I dunno, I was at the NDYC convention where we all agreed that the age of consent nonsense should never have got through our party. I'm curious to know how that happened. Does anybody know? It doesn't seem like the typical sort of thing that our party would get behind...
redflag, have you read the article that this thread is about?
[url=http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/2316]Click here.[/url]
[Edited to provide a working link to Corvin's article.]
Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)No, that was just the bad part.
The good parts were calling for Canada to get out of Afghanistan; condemning Israel's attack on Lebanon; and supporting Québec's nationhood and right to leave if it desires.
See? There's lots worth writing about!
Memories.
And an awful lot of research and good old digging on the part of a union leader looking for a convenient copout to explain voting for Liberals and Conservatives on the part of union membership.
Is there nothing else worth writing about regarding the NDP convention beyond the fact that the NDP has essentially taken no hard and fast position on whether or not canada should have the same age of consent as the Netherlands (though a higher AOC than Mexico)No, that was just the bad part.
The good parts were calling for Canada to get out of Afghanistan; condemning Israel's attack on Lebanon; and supporting Québec's nationhood and right to leave if it desires.
See? There's lots worth writing about!
Memories.
More memories.
Oh, and by the way, here is a working link to Corvin Russell's excellent report of that time:
[url=http://rabble.ca/news/revisiting-convention-retrospective]Revisiting the Convention: A Retrospective[/url]
