Oh! Now you are opposed to "defamation of religion". Or do you mean the defamation of some religions?
Should the left split from the NDP?
Tue, 2008-12-02 23:39
#52
Cueball
Tue, 2008-12-02 23:47
#53
You provocateur, you never stop. You have a problem. How many people here have to tell you how ugly your statements are? Get back to the thread, even though you have said you don't care about these issues.
Tue, 2008-12-02 23:54
#54
Infant. Get lost.
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:00
#55
Cueball
Hypocrite.
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:03
#56
peterjcassidy
Hi all:
OK comrades, sisters and brothers here are a few arguments I want to make:
First,
the question of a coalition with the Liberals or any other boss or
bourgeois party, is not a question of principle but a question of
strategy and tactics: .What advances the interests of the working
class, what advances the class struggle? See V.I. Lenin below.
Second,
while we are all need to be prepared for the social democratic sell-out
and the Liberal sell-out and the separatists and the union sell out
etc. etc.
Third, At this critical moment of the dawning
crisis of capitalism our party and our leader have continued to show
some principles and some smarts. Yep, right now I back Jack,say GO JACK
GO!!! and think we need to do the same, maybe with the traditional
critical support. Think of him as a Prue rather than a Kerensky.
Right
now we are in a political and constitutional crisis over the handling
of the capitalism crisis and talking about state power. We need serious
consideRAtions of strategy and tactics.
I believe the
Conservative Economic Update was an open and opening attack on women,
workers and the framework of the parliamentary democracy we have in
Canada. BANG, ALL THE PROGRESSIVE FORCES ENTER INTO A COALITION/ACCORD
TO TAKE POWER AND DEAL WITH THE CRISIS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE
AND ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE I say GO JACK GO!!!
---------------------
The "menshevik "positon in the Socialist Caucus debte about what our positoon should be.
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:07
#57
I don't see any Lenin quotes there. In any event, I don't think that even in Left-Wing Communism (1920) he broke with Kautsky's anti-coalitionist warning in The Road to Power (1909).
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:14
#58
Cueball
Lol. Now I am a provocateur (a spy maybe). I am not allowed to hold the opinion that the Chabad movement is a highly ideological radical Zionist (?) messianic cult?
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:18
#59
A united left, eh?
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:19
#60
Cueball
Untied!
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:21
#61
^^^ No, [b]Angella[/b] - the NDP will fold into the Liberal Party. The "united left" of which is speak is one that returns to the basics of class struggle (despite all the class-collaborationist cries of "loony left" or "ultra-left").
[b]Cueball[/b], please respond to my PM. 
Wed, 2008-12-03 00:52
#62
peterjcassidy
I don't see any Lenin quotes there. In any event, I don't think that even in Left-Wing Communism (1920) he broke with Kautsky's anti-coalitionist warning in The Road to Power (1909).
===========================================================
"...All
compromise with other parties ... any policy of manoeuvring and
compromise must be emphatically rejected," the German Lefts write in
the Frankfurt pamphlet.
It is surprising that, with such views,
these Lefts do not emphatically condemn Bolshevism! After all, the
German Lefts cannot but know that the entire history of Bolshevism,
both before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of
changes of tack, conciliatory tactics and compromises with other
parties, including bourgeois parties!
Prior to the downfall of
tsarism, the Russian revolutionary Social-Democrats made repeated use
of the services of the bourgeois liberals, i.e., they concluded
numerous practical compromises with the latter. In 1901-02, even prior
to the appearance of Bolshevism, the old editorial board of Iskra
(consisting of Plekhanov, Axelrod, Zasulich Martov, Potresov and
myself) concluded (not for long, it is true) a formal political
alliance with Strove, the political leader of bourgeois liberalism,
while at the same time being able to wage an unremitting and most
merciless ideological and political struggle against bourgeois
liberalism and against the slightest manifestation of its influence in
the working-class movement. The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this
policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance..
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm
=============================================-------------------
Wed, 2008-12-03 01:17
#63
M. Spector
Tactical compromises and accords with bourgeois forces are not the same as formal coalitions. Lenin often denounced the latter as class-collaboration. For example, when the Mensheviks made a coalition with the bourgeois Provisional Government in 1917, he excoriated them in these terms:
The capitalists, … seeing that the position of the Government was untenable, resorted to a method which since 1848 has been for decades practised by the capitalists in order to befog, divide, and finally overpower the working-class. This method is the so-called ‘Coalition Ministry,’ composed of bourgeois and of renegades from the Socialist camp.[b]In those countries where political freedom and democracy have existed side by side with the revolutionary movement of the workers – for example in England and France – the capitalists make use of this subterfuge, and very successfully too. The ‘Socialist’ leaders, upon entering the Ministries, invariably prove mere figure-heads, puppets, simply a shield for the capitalists, a tool with which to defraud the workers.[/b] The ‘democratic’ and ‘republican’ capitalists in Russia set in motion this very same scheme. The Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviki fell victim to it, and on June 1st a ‘Coalition’ Ministry, with the participation of Tchernov, Tseretelli, Skobeliev, Avksentiev, Savinkov, Zarudny and Nikitin became an accomplished fact….
- [url=http://marx.org/archive/reed/1919/10days/10days/ch1.htm][u]quoted by John Reed[/u][/url]
Wed, 2008-12-03 01:22
#64
Peter, I believe the full quote is "The Bolsheviks have always adhered to this policy. Since 1905 they have systematically advocated an alliance between the working class and the peasantry, [b]against the liberal bourgeoisie and tsarism[/b], never, however, refusing to support the bourgeoisie against tsarism (for instance, during second rounds of elections, or during second ballots) and never ceasing their relentless ideological and political struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the bourgeois-revolutionary peasant party, exposing them as petty-bourgeois democrats who have falsely described themselves as socialists."
That is somewhat different from what is being opposed here (minus the heated rhetoric):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm
"What is opposed is the idea of the possibility that a proletarian party can during normal times regularly combine with a capitalist party for the purpose of maintaining a government or a governmental party, without being destroyed by the insuperable conflicts which must exist. The power of the state is everywhere an organ of class rule. The class antagonisms between the workers and the possessing class are so great that the proletariat can never share governmental power with any possessing class. The possessing class will always demand, and its interests will force it to demand, that the power of the state shall be used to hold the proletariat down. On the other hand the proletariat will always demand that any government in which their own party possesses power, shall use the power of the state to assist it in its battle against capital. Consequently every government based upon a coalition of capitalist and working class parties is foredoomed to disruption.
A proletarian party which shares power with a capitalist party in any government must share the blame for any acts of subjection of the working class. It thereby invites the hostility of its own supporters, and this in turn causes its capitalist allies to lose confidence and makes any progressive action impossible. No such arrangement can bring any strength to the working class. No capitalist party will permit it do so. It can only compromise a proletarian party- and confuse and split the working class.
It was just such a condition that constantly postponed the revolution of 1848 and brought about the political collapse of the bourgeois democracy, and excluded any co-operation with it for the purpose of winning and utilizing political power.
However willing Marx and Engels were to utilize the differences between capitalist parties for the furtherance of proletarian purposes, and however much they were opposed to the expression “reactionary mass,” they have, nevertheless, coined the phrase “dictation of the proletariat”, which Engels defended shortly before his death in 1891, as expressing the fact, that only through purely proletarian political domination can the working class exercise its political power."
Wed, 2008-12-03 01:51
#65
Cueball
Where is this document where he uses the phrase "dictation of the proletariat" in 1891? Its a forward tp something right, or a letter?
Wed, 2008-12-03 01:57
#66
peterjcassidy
A fine debate. We could argue over the most advanced interpretion of the sacred works but I think we are at kest agreed we need to consider what advances the sturggle in this time of crisis,,recognziing the high probablility of sell=out. Preparing for the split is one option.laying the groundwork for denoucning the NDP as arevisonist class collaborationist party and calling for the creationa of a true socialitst party might appeal to some. . Personallly I would go for at least critical support. as the crisis unfolds.That is based on a best guesss analysis as to the balance of forces lining up.
Seriously, sisters and brothers, we are particating in a a major political poltical retrucuring in Canada in the midst of a crisis of capitalism. Onone side are pretty well all the major progressive political forces in Canada attemmpting to take state power to deal with the economic crisis. Yes they did not agree to decriminalize marijauna or bring in PR or get us out of Afghansitan or do a million other things but they are tyring to do somehting. On the other side some options discussed are thee firing of the Prime Minister by the Governor Gernral , the firing of the Governor General by the Prime Minsiter, the suspension of Parliament, the shutting down of the govenment, the taking over of the air waves by Rush Limbaugh type talk show hsots talking of separatists and socialists and ttreason with the call to takie to the streets of thousands fighting for their version of Canadian unity . And the demand of the left is for what?-split from the NDP and proclaim the Revolutionary Proletariat Party as the leader of the struggle?
I say Go Jack GO!!!
Wed, 2008-12-03 02:15
#67
Cueball
Yes, we could just say "go jack go!" But I am not particularly interested in the coalition stuff so, I thought I would track down this Kautsky reference to Engels for my own amusement, even though I agree it may not be as relevant as all that, either.
Wed, 2008-12-03 02:31
#68
So when do we takeover the factories? I'm ready.
Viva La Revolución
Wed, 2008-12-03 02:48
#69
Cueball
"We" already control the factories. Guess you missed the part between "A Spectre is haunting Europe" and "they have a world to win."
Wed, 2008-12-03 02:54
#70
"We" already control the factories. Guess you missed the part between "A Spectre is haunting Europe" and "they have a world to win."
I think what's happening now is an attempted change of ownership for sure. It's more revolution from above with financial capitalists making a grab for the means of production from increasingly bankrupt industrial capitalists.
Wed, 2008-12-03 03:44
#71
Interested Observer
What about the chartered accounting offices, micro-lending institutions and Web 2.0 start-ups? What, don't they deserve the same attention as factories?
[url=http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CgQkKogqHDQ]Sweatshop Bloggers Unite![/url]
Who's with me? 
[i][b]Brian Topp[/b]: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)[/i]
Wed, 2008-12-03 09:44
#72
Where is this document where he uses the phrase "dictation of the proletariat" in 1891? Its a forward tp something right, or a letter?
I think it's a translation error, when it's obvious what was originally said was "dictatorship of the proletariat." It's interesting to note that [i]The Road to Power[/i] faced initial censorship by the SPD press itself!
Wed, 2008-12-03 13:23
#73
Cueball
Yes, well where is that? I am asking because the only real reference I saw to this concept was in the thing he wrote about the Paris Communes.
Wed, 2008-12-03 21:48
#74
Yes, well where is that? I am asking because the only real reference I saw to this concept was in the thing he wrote about the Paris Communes.
I believe Engels wrote about the DOTP, 1891-wise, in his Critique of the Erfurt Program (authored by Kautsky and Bernstein):
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm
"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown. It would be inconceivable for our best people to become ministers under an emperor, as Miquel. It would seem that from a legal point of view it is inadvisable to include the demand for a republic directly in the programme, although this was possible even under Louis Phillippe in France, and is now in Italy. But the fact that in Germany it is not permitted to advance even a republican party programme openly, proves how totally mistaken is the belief that a republic, and not only a republic, but also communist society, can be established in a cosy, peaceful way.
However, the question of the republic could possibly be passed by. What, however, in my opinion should and could be included is the demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of the people’s representatives. That would suffice for the time being if it is impossible to go any further."
Wed, 2008-12-03 22:05
#75
Cueball
Thanks. Pragmatic, and anything but uncompromising. Sadly there is not a lot added to the original description of what he means by "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Wed, 2008-12-03 22:28
#76
Haha, I think Engels was using "wink-wink" code-speak here. I mean, look at something he said earlier in his critique:
"Instead of 'class-conscious', which in our circles is an easily understood abbreviation, I would say the following to facilitate universal understanding and translation into foreign languages: 'with workers conscious of their class position', or something like it."
BTW, I still await your response.
Thu, 2008-12-04 03:28
#77
Cueball
I will respond in due time.
You see the thing is that for all of the fuss the Leninists have made over the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and what this means, the fact is that what it means is largely deduced. It is hardly a well developed concept in the work of Engels, and given its frequency of use and explication, it hardly seems central to the Marx and Engels analysis of "the way forward." The Leninist thesis is almost entirely based in revolutionary politics, and it quite inflexible in this regard. On the other hand it is quite evident that Engels himself was of the "by any means necessary" school of social transformation, up to and including outright siezure of power by force. But, he never precludes other possible means, as your clipping suggests.
"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown."
It seems to me that the concept of "dictatorship" is given a kind of literal meaning in the latter day Leninist lexicon of political thought that basically asserts that revolution, force, and dictatoriship are the only means by which social transformation can be achieved, and this is given authority and made "orthodox" by what amounts to a single reference, in one tract, by Engels.
I don't think the Leninist interpretation is justified, really, and I think Marxist are justified in taking a more flexible approach to the means of social transformation, though I can understand why this view was given such prominence by the Bolsheviks given the specific circumstances of the Tsarist regieme.
Thu, 2008-12-04 10:24
#78
"But, he never precludes other possible means, as your clipping suggests."
Keep in mind, however, that the meaning of "democratic republic" was far more radical in the day of Marx and Engels than it is today:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm
Macnair has written boat-loads of CPGB articles on the meaning of the term "democratic republic," especially with regards to the recallability of all public officials, the formation of militias, and scrapping the "third branch" of government (thereby limiting the courts to criminal and civil cases).
As for "Leninists," most of them neither know nor appreciate the lost fact that Lenin was a [Marxist-]Kautskyist. It was only during the civil war that his concept of the DOTP hardened (in response to Kautsky's dilution of the "democratic republic," following previous bourgeois dilutions, as well as to his mentor's break with Marxism).
Thu, 2008-12-04 20:05
#79
Care to clarify?
Fri, 2008-12-05 04:08
#80
bagkitty
In response to the O.P.
If "it" does I predict the most obvious signs will be:
1) familiar faces missing at National Convention, and
2) shorter lines at the microphones at National Convention.
I know of one riding association that would lose an executive member.
I'm not certain how much electoral success a new grouping would have -- since I suspect it would be a little light in the experience department when running campaigns in the vast majority of ridings. I do believe it would have a very carefully reasoned platform and, if it could afford a domain name, would provide interesting internet reading. On the other hand, I am very doubtful about the chances of such a grouping being able to communicate its message outside of the cyber realm. Donor base would, in my estimation, be minimal.
Fri, 2008-12-05 21:32
#81
M. Spector
Should the left split from the NDP?
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Fri, 2008-12-05 21:36
#82
M. Spector
Care to clarify?
Nothing to clarify. I just wanted to see if I could write a syntactically-correct sentence containing the word "left" three times in succession. 
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Fri, 2008-12-05 21:52
#83
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
It appears that none of the Harpers nor you are willing to find out.
Where are they now, in Bavaria? Switzerland? Berchtesgaden? I hear the poulet cordon blew at Berchtesgaden is quite nice.
Sat, 2008-12-06 05:17
#84
Canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
We are living in a matrix, a dreamworld created by the corporate capitalist Empire if we think that DOTP has any relevance or significance. The issues touching all humanity are ecological in nature like those of climate change.
All progressives must unite to keep the conservatives out of power. Conservatives support extracting non renewable resources as quickly as possible in order to maximise profits to shareholders. We all know this. More people understand this and can be motivated to act in a collective fashion than fighting class enemies that share the same pension plans.
A DOTP leads to the same stratification, concentration of power and corruption that every society is vulnerable to. Such stratification, power, and corruption is the enemy of the population of the earth.
Democracy and consensus are the least painful way of leading the people of the earth into a coalition that will deal with the environmenal issues facing us all.
The philosophy and rhetoric of classical Marxism does not serve us well in analysis of these issues, or communication with the people of the earth. The lingua franca of the planet is that of consumer corporate capitalism, so we need to speak that language. The concepts of democratic socialism can be successfully communicated in that language, so we need to do that.
Sat, 2008-12-06 05:25
#85
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
So, not only should the left not split off from the NDP, we should lead the NDP into the coalition. We need to be reconcilers and bridge builders in order to achieve the goal of leading Canadians into a society where all have a chance to contribute to and benefit from the investment in labour, creativity that we all are making.
Sat, 2008-12-06 07:41
#86
Is there a truly left left left in the NDP?
Can't quite best that, but here's the best that I can do:
Once the truly left left left, the left left left left principles behind.
Sat, 2008-12-06 09:05
#87
M. Spector
It also has the advantage of being historically accurate.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Sat, 2008-12-06 09:33
#88
I'm not certain how much electoral success a new grouping would have -- since I suspect it would be a little light in the experience department when running campaigns in the vast majority of ridings. I do believe it would have a very carefully reasoned platform and, if it could afford a domain name, would provide interesting internet reading. On the other hand, I am very doubtful about the chances of such a grouping being able to communicate its message outside of the cyber realm. Donor base would, in my estimation, be minimal.
All that, and they'd still be called sellouts by the two communist parties. 
Sat, 2008-12-06 10:19
#89
I've been following this debate, and I see a major weakness in the anti-coalition side. I have long been against entering into any formal coalition deals because of some of the concerns raised in this thread and because I fear that compromises the NDP's political independence. At the same time, what is the alternative?
Just a recap. The Bloc and the NDP from the outset said they would not support the Conservatives on the economic update. The Liberals decided they would not after the Conservatives indicated they would cut public party financing, and it now seems inevitable that the Conservatives will lose confidence. These are circumstances that were thrust upon us, to which we now have to respond. Now that confidence is lost, what happens? The first obvious answer is to have an election. Problem is, the combination of voter fatigue, Conservative determination and the unpreparedness of the opposition to fight a campaign right now will almost certainly guarantee a Harper majority. All of us agree that this an undesirable situation.
So what else can we do? The Liberals and the NDP decide to form a governing coalition, but since they don't have the numbers combined, they bring in the Bloc. Maybe this thing can work. In the last election, all parties, to varying extents, ran on a "stop Harper" campaign. There has been talk about such things as fixing income support programs, building public housing, etc. These things are beneficial. On the other hand, there is concern about the Liberal's past activities, and some people feel the NDP has caved on issues that are too important. I respect this viewpoint, and maybe the coalition is an undesirable situation also.
So we have 2 undesirable situations. Now we have to come up with a situation that is desirable. The thing with the coalition is that it has specifics: "we will do this because it will accomplish that, and this is the way it will work." I haven't heard any such solutions from the anti-coalition supporters. The only thing I have heard are vauge references to such things as "taking to the streets to demand better." What will this accomplish? It certainly didn't prevent the US from invading Iraq. What specific steps and proposals do you have that will get us out of this mess?
And I say this as one who did not support Obama in the most recent US elections.
Sat, 2008-12-06 14:27
#90
M. Spector
The Conservatives are a minority in the House, and they manage to rule without a coalition.
It's not out of the question for the Liberals to do the same. All they need to do is demonstrate that they have the confidence of the House. That doesn't require a coalition. All it requires is an agreement to support the governing party on confidence votes so long as the government does certain things in return.
That's how Paul Martin was kept going for a while by the NDP. There was no coalition.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Sat, 2008-12-06 15:40
#91
The Conservatives are a minority in the House, and they manage to rule without a coalition.
What are you talking about? They're afraid to show up for work!
Sat, 2008-12-06 20:49
#92
M. Spector
I don't know if you've noticed, but they've been showing up for work for almost the last three years, and have never lost a confidence vote. They were propped up by your newfound allies, the Liberal Party of Canada.
You don't need a coalition in order to have a minority government. You just have to have a government party on a short leash, and an opposition that's willing to combine to defeat them if they get too far out of line.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Sat, 2008-12-06 21:48
#93
You don't need a coalition in order to have a minority government. You just have to have a government party on a short leash, and an opposition that's willing to combine to defeat them if they get too far out of line.
Well, they did get too far out of line and have been defeated. So what now?
Sat, 2008-12-06 21:54
#94
M. Spector
They haven't been defeated in the House yet. That will come in January, if at all.
Then the GG can either call an election or ask the Liberals to govern if they have the confidence of the House. A coalition is not necessary.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Sat, 2008-12-06 22:52
#95
ArghMonkey
Haha... MISC...
Almost as bad as C.R.A.P.P. !
[i][b]Brian Topp[/b]: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)[/i]
It was C.C.R.A.P. btw ...
Id personally like to see the Greens and NDP join forces, lets face it the reason the CONServatives are in power is because they consolidated power, sure we know that the cons are a p.o.s. but most Canadians dont know this and the time it takes for the rest of Canada to understand the fact that the cons dont care about them will be exactly the amount of time it takes to gut Canada of everything good we have and compared to Europe we have very little good left to destroy ...
I doubt that its possible right now but I would like to see the greens and ndp join forces, we obviously cant wait for Harper to sour all of Canada ...
The LAST thing we should do is break up within the NDP, we need to bring more ppl into the fold ...
Sat, 2008-12-06 23:19
#96
I don't know if you've noticed, but they've been showing up for work for almost the last three years, and have never lost a confidence vote. They were propped up by your newfound allies, the Liberal Party of Canada.
2006 to 08 was just a get to know and trust him and his reformaTory-rightwingLiberals-Cons coalition period.
They were looking for a phony-baloney majority a few weeks ago at a cost of $300 million bucks and didnt get one. Out came the fangs and claws, and now the Harpers have hid themselves away at the eagle's nest because they're afraid of a little bit of democracy. Democracy is the right's most hated institution, as you know.
You don't need a coalition in order to have a minority government. You just have to have a government party on a short leash, and an opposition that's willing to combine to defeat them if they get too far out of line.
With his newfound exaggerated minority in hand, herr Harper proceeded to threaten political opposition with pulling public funding for those parties not familiar with bay street kick-back and graft - tried to cancel women's rights to sue for pay equity - cancel public workers' right to strike and free wage increases - spend half a trillion on military buildup Raygun and herr Bushlers I&II style - and whips up anti-Quebec sentiment at a time when separtism has rarely been lower on their list of things to do in that province. And his stimulus pkg was actually a non-stimulus package
In a few words, I'm not real high on herr Harper. And not only that, the shine is off Harper as far as the 62% of democratically-elected MP's in Ottawa are concerned. And herr Harper is a going concern. Now he's put a padlock on the doors of parliament and refuses to show up for work. I think he's lost his marbles, if you ask me.
If you are reading this, you have just proved once again how annoying signatures/tag lines are. Support their abolition.
Okay, but Harper goes first. Deal or no deal
Sat, 2008-12-06 23:37
#97
bagkitty
All that, and they'd still be called sellouts by the two communist parties.
Sigh, and I remember the good old days (1980s) when there were three:
CPC(M-L) whom we referred to as the friend (singular) of Albania
WCP (Workers' Communist Party) remembered best for their knock down drag out fight as to whether or not the working class used marijuana (they decided that the working class didn't, so they confined themselves to alcohol at parties) and, of course
The official Communist Part of Canada (CPC) --- I am so surprised they never got around to suing the Conservatives (CPC) for copyright infringement.
Sat, 2008-12-06 23:40
#98
bagkitty
Whom the hive does not cherish it eats.
[edit] whoops, hit the submit comment button by mistake, I know, I'll
say I did it so Spector can add another tag line to his collection -
yeah, that's the ticket[/edit]
Mon, 2008-12-08 01:01
#99
Your point being?
Mon, 2008-12-29 15:31
#100
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the world.
Well, it is interesting to see Ignatiev cosying up to the conservatives. It's not too surprising. The only reason to get in bed with the Liberals is to get them to pass proportional representation electoral laws through the House as well as the Senate, and that is technically, still possible. I think that is a pill too bitter for the Liberals to swallow. They, after all, have visions of returning to majority status and PR would hamper them too much in acheiving that.
Mon, 2008-12-29 17:09
#101
canadians are not the working class, we are the paid servants of the Empire living off the working class in the rest of the worldWell said! We're the Roman plebs eating the bread taken at swordpoint from Alexandria.