I stand corrected about the age of the GP, and I deserve to be snerked without mercy.
The party was founded officially in the early eighties in BC, ON and federally. But it didn't properly contest elections until about ten years ago, with fullish slates.
Well, remind can be forgiven for thinking many Green members are anti-union for posts such as this:
http://www.davebagler.ca/friends-of-irony
and this:
http://www.davebagler.ca/ok-hold-on
... to give just 2 examples.
OO - All due respect I can search babble and find any number of NDP supporters who advocate socialism which ceased being an NDP pursuit decades ago. In fact the NDP has a socialist caucus that is unhappy with the activities and present policies of the party as a whole. Remind is much more intelligent than the post I referred to and a passionate defender of women's rights which I respect. I'm well aware of Dave Bagler's opinions and others but they remain a minority in our party much the same as socialists and anti-imperialists remain a minority in the NDP.
The Green party is a big tent that tolerates all kinds of things.
The fact that includes outright anti-union sentiments like Baglers is not mutually exclusive with what mimeguy said above.
mimeguy, Green Party members have actually, and recently too, came on here and had the audacity to union/worker bash...
It is supportive of market fixes, and not too much else....
And yes, it has presented itself as a left wing party, in fact hsfreethinker just tried in his post that I snerked over. But long before that it did too, especially in BC. That is why social justice policies were put in place, IMV, and they are just part of the big con.
"fullish" slates?
Oh, IC, another fabrication, as we can truthfully say "paper candidates" abound these days.
And once again the Green Party has never presented itself as a 'left wing party'.
That's true, but some are intellectually dishonest enough to suggest they actually transcend the left/right spectrum (so they're really revolutionary in that sense!) What they really mean is the Greens adopt "left" positions on some things and "right" positions on others, so they're a mixture - not breaking outside the box at all.
That being said, it seems quite clear that the Greens take a lot more from the progressive side than from the right. Elizabeth May's claim to be a "Progressive Conservative" impresses nobody.
The party seems to be a mixture of Green business types and leftwing activists and "radical democrats" - I can't see how such a party can stay together.
On the whole, I would put the Greens to the left of the Liberals and Tories and to the right of the NDP.
I stand corrected about the age of the GP, and I deserve to be snerked without mercy.
The party was founded officially in the early eighties in BC, ON and federally. But it didn't properly contest elections until about ten years ago, with fullish slates.
Some friends of mine, generally "progressive" people around the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" variant, were around the Ontario Greens in the 1980's but drifted away. The sense was that the Greens did not really have any sort of base or organizational capacity, never mind no clear vision. Supposedly the European Greens of that time came from activists and social movements (environmental, feminist, anti-nuke,anarchist and were able to bring significant support, to a consensual vision mobilizing millions round their banner, and win significant seats in parliamentsand a new hope fror many. . The Canadian Green Party of the 1980's was seen as a collection or several collections of scattered individuals, attracted to the Green ideas and success in Europe trying to form a similar party here. Lacking the base and clear vision they remained a fairly small force in Canadian politics until certain changes occurred around 2003/2004 . I sense the changes from a 5 party system ( in rough order of strength) - Liberals, Reform, Bloc, PC, NDP- to a 4.x party system = Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP.......Green and the changes in election financing, led to the leadership of Elizabeth May and her team.
Any response to that simplistic view? 
ottawaobserver - thanks for the formatting tips. Will try this again.
Sean in Ottawa - I will concur with John, I had already "outed" myself.
John O. - I thought you got banned for calling for Sharon Labchuk's termination
I see people are also starting to predict that the Greens will elect MPs again this time.
The only reason I highlighted this prediction is that the province "electing" this MP is Ontario, not BC. Many May supporters quote positive polls as justification for their actions. Those that know me (or follow me in the blogosphere) know that I don't trust any polls. It comes down to a party's ability to convert poll support to actual support.
Bottom line is, you are trying to feed the us here, and the public at large, the cacka that the Green Party is left, or wants to be, when in reality it exists just to keep the CONservatives in power. And to do so, it needs to try and appear left to try and syphon votes from the left.
I have Greens on my blog accusing me of being paid by the NDP to mudsling Greens. I have NDP stating that the Greens are a pawn of the Conservatives to hurt the left. I don't what team I'm "really" playing for but I haven't seen a cheque from anybody for supporting/hindering the NDP.
Elizabeth May's claim to be a "Progressive Conservative" impresses nobody.
To be fair, I don't think Ms. May ever made that claim. She worked for the PC government but that's different than being a card carrying member.
and the changes in election financing, led to the leadership of Elizabeth May and her team.
I'll disagree with that. The inexperience of the party in all things political led to Ms. May winning the leadership. If anyone looks back at the numbers for the 2006 race, you'll see the number of votes needed to win the position was less than what local candidates need to obtain to become MP in safe ridings (Flanagan's book on Harper talked about former Calgary Northeast MP Art Hanger selling 12,000 membership in the nomination race).
OO - All due respect I can search babble and find any number of NDP supporters who advocate socialism which ceased being an NDP pursuit decades ago. In fact the NDP has a socialist caucus that is unhappy with the activities and present policies of the party as a whole. Remind is much more intelligent than the post I referred to and a passionate defender of women's rights which I respect.
I don't really understand what you're driving at, here. That the NDP as a whole shouldn't be judged by the left caucus, perhaps. Not sure that addresses my point about most Green Party members I've met being anti-union.
I'm well aware of Dave Bagler's opinions and others but they remain a minority in our party much the same as socialists and anti-imperialists remain a minority in the NDP.
Well, I've had a pretty consistent impression, and I do keep my eyes open. If you say it's wrong, well I'll just have to document what I've been seeing as I come across it, and get back to you.
Green tory was not speaking of you at large, nor even perhaps lower ranking individuals within the party, and the "party" itself.
It is no coincidence that May 'former' PR hack for lyin' Brian and BC Green Party leader Jean Sterk 'former' Reform Party member, and are leaders stearing the course for the rest of ya...
.... there was chosen to portray this "inexperienced role" I would say, as opposed to indicating those in the Green Party are to stupid to learn politics after almost 30 years in existence.
Because really it is either/or at this point.
To be fair, I don't think Ms. May ever made that claim. She worked for the PC government but that's different than being a card carrying member.
Fair enough, but I recall her lamenting the loss of the tolerant, progressive PCs and saying how the Harper Conservatives weren't part of Canadian political culture (it's a copout in my view to suggest that anything "rightwing" must be a mere American import. Canada has always had reactionary politicians.)
Most of these "former Progressive Conservatives" supported Harper in 2006 and 2008 and I doubt very many people whoused to support Harper and are now appalled are impressed by Elizabeth May.
OO, there was just talk about this in another thread in respect to those in the Green Party publically trashing the GP worker who was terminated and if inclined i could go pull some fairly recent trashings of workers by GP former candidates and supporter.
Not going to waste my time, as neither of us are off base here with our statements about this.
*snerk**sigh*
Do not know why you are sighing, when you try and feed us garbage like this, you actually deserve nothing more than a snerk:
I see the Liberals as a right-wing party. They certainly are economically right-wing, free-trade supporters, big-bank apologists. They have a higher average IQ than the Conservatives, but otherwise not much difference. In my view, the Greens should not advocate neoliberal economic policies, they should take concrete measures to reduce income inequality, and should not be shy of regulating business, funding state projects, or nationalizing certain industries if it's in the public interest. I used to support the PCs, so I don't dislike conservatives - it's just that I think right-wing economic ideas are mostly wrong-headed and unfair / unjust.
Free trade = lyin Brian and the PC's, whom you say you supported
The Green Party advocates market fixes to the environment, hates unions and is pretty much opposed to all those things you listed, which you say you support and which indeed the NDP has stood for and done upon some occasions, for a very long time.
Bottom line is, you are trying to feed the us here, and the public at large, the cacka that the Green Party is left, or wants to be, when in reality it exists just to keep the CONservatives in power. And to do so, it needs to try and appear left to try and syphon votes from the left.
"remind", you are misinterpreting me. You make too many assumptions. As I've grown older I've changed / refined my political views. I started as a teen supporting Reform (I didn't know they were evil), then went to PC (Clark), then Liberal (Dion), then Green. I don't really fit anywhere now, as my views are left-libertarian. What I said about the Greens is what I say they should be, not what they are. Please stop this conspiracy nonsense and accusing me of some agenda to bullshit people. I'm getting tired of it, hence the *sigh*.
I stand corrected about the age of the GP, and I deserve to be snerked without mercy.
The party was founded officially in the early eighties in BC, ON and federally. But it didn't properly contest elections until about ten years ago, with fullish slates.
Some friends of mine, generally "progressive" people around the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" variant, were around the Ontario Greens in the 1980's but drifted away. The sense was that the Greens did not really have any sort of base or organizational capacity, never mind no clear vision. Supposedly the European Greens of that time came from activists and social movements (environmental, feminist, anti-nuke,anarchist and were able to bring significant support, to a consensual vision mobilizing millions round their banner, and win significant seats in parliamentsand a new hope fror many. . The Canadian Green Party of the 1980's was seen as a collection or several collections of scattered individuals, attracted to the Green ideas and success in Europe trying to form a similar party here. Lacking the base and clear vision they remained a fairly small force in Canadian politics until certain changes occurred around 2003/2004 . I sense the changes from a 5 party system ( in rough order of strength) - Liberals, Reform, Bloc, PC, NDP- to a 4.x party system = Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, NDP.......Green and the changes in election financing, led to the leadership of Elizabeth May and her team.
Any response to that simplistic view?
That pretty much describes it, Peter. I was one of a dozen or so people who put a few $twenties on a table in a T.O. rec centre, that early spring of '83 and said, let's do it. The Greens in B.C.were ahead of us by some months, and provided good advice...an airline pilot was currier between the Vancouver and Toronto groups.
Every environmental non-profit group was represented, eventually, and it was before the Great Awakening, when it became clear that atmospheric greenhouse degradation was going to be THE question in a struggle to save the species, including our own. I picked up a copy of Lovelock's The Ages of Gaia and began to wonder how this collection of beautiful odds and sods was going to sell the one, politically. And of course, it never came together. The primary concern for the first several years was that there not be a structure involving leadership, let alone a coherent set of policy proposals. I attempted to find membership among the denizens of Kitchener and Waterloo - even put a small ad in the local paper. Just two very odd sods respoonded. Students at U of W cringed at the ideas of Lovelock. They might have gone along with defense of animal rights, or save the whales. I gave up and went back to hoping that the political party I had joined at the time of its formation more than two decades earlier, would overcome the labour bias against talk of environmental limits.
The most notable change in Green fortunes (the $ variety) came with entry of Jim Harris, showman and organizer (with a couple of buddies he brought from Conservative precincts - had the (dis)honour to meet the P.T. Barnum act-alike a couple of summers back) when each vote meant wealth. Suddenly, organization was all. But of course, now the problem is how to marry the Libertarian ideas of the conservative element (all for one and one for his or her self) with those who profess fondness for the downtrodden and impecunious. And that contradiction is nothing compared to the one between their ideas of a technological fix for climate change and the laws of nature. (I debated the silly sods about their ideas for storage of energy generated from wind turbines, but they just got increasingly Buck Rogerish).
Inviting these chaps here was an insult to the integrity of this board.
Inviting these chaps here was an insult to the integrity of this board.
What invite?
I haven't been following this blog, though I've read the odd article. I'd like to get a better sense of what is going on with the Green Party and particularly what the Report on Green folks are trying to achieve. I know John Ogilvie is on babble, and I'd appreciate if he'd join in here on this thread. I'm not sure whether [URL=http://greenparty.ca/node/11434]Mark Taylor[/URL] is here as well.
This one...followed immediately by their dutiful responses.
Green Tory is Mark Taylor. I'm here, too. So you have the whole set from Report on Greens :-)
I don't see why rabble (which I read daily) shouldn't be a good forum for hardcore Green discussions.
Anybody who wants to engage in Green-vs-NDP polemics can blow it out your ass, tho. We're all on the same fuck-Harper team here.
Except you're all greying Trotsky followers, and we Greens aren't :-)
Can you imagine being on the same "fuck-Harper team" with this one? : D
We have this latent support despite the fact that we are a totally dysfunctional party, i.e. couldn't organize a dog-fuck on the front lawn.
John, maybe we can rescue this thread from becoming just another Green-bashing extravaganza on the part of certain individuals who believe the NDP is the one and only source of truth, wisdom and beauty .
If the Green Party is dysfunctional, I'm interested in why that is. From the standpoint of an outsider, it seems to me that Green supporters are united only in their belief that the environment has to become the top priority. There are definite progressive sensibilities but they seem to be somewhat vaguely defined. There is also an element of libertarianism and a definite leaning towards decentralization of power. I find the latter two characteristics to be difficult to reconcile with the overarching environmentalist underpinning of the party. I just don't think that the type of changes we need to make on the environmental front will happen without strong central authority.
I've never been a member of any party but from what I've heard and read, it seems to me that the big problem is that the characteristics that define the Green Party allow for a huge range of beliefs (as measured on the traditional left-right scale). On top of that, the Green Party is the natural recipient of political malcontents and other individuals who don't feel comfortable in the traditional parties. That must make for some interesting discussions when it comes to policy. But, under strong leadership, I can see the possibility for this weakness to be turned into a formidable strength.
So, my questions are:
I haven't been following this blog, though I've read the odd article. I'd like to get a better sense of what is going on with the Green Party and particularly what the Report on Green folks are trying to achieve. I know John Ogilvie is on babble, and I'd appreciate if he'd join in here on this thread. I'm not sure whether [URL=http://greenparty.ca/node/11434]Mark Taylor[/URL] is here as well.This one...followed immediately by their dutiful responses.
We were invited, then abused.
Whatever. Bye.
See you at the polling stations.
"remind", you are misinterpreting me. You make too many assumptions. As I've grown older I've changed / refined my political views. I started as a teen supporting Reform (I didn't know they were evil), then went to PC (Clark), then Liberal (Dion), then Green. I don't really fit anywhere now, as my views are left-libertarian. What I said about the Greens is what I say they should be, not what they are. Please stop this conspiracy nonsense and accusing me of some agenda to bullshit people. I'm getting tired of it, hence the *sigh*.
I ain't misinterpreting nuttin....
You just simply ARE feeding us a pile of cacka
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian. And George did an excellent job of debunking your premise that you are.
as for your conspiracy nonsense that is so condescendingly patronizing, please, for your own sake, do not try it again.
quote: "Except you're all greying Trotsky followers, and we Greens aren't :-)"
And for the delusional and self-absorbed, this does not constitute abuse, of course.
OK, I admit that I was making trouble, unnecessarily, and just for fun.
But bye, anyway.
:Picking wings off flies is fun for some...
Seems the hypocrisy, of the PC's, Reformatories, Candian Alliance, and nowadays the CONservative Party, has made it shinningly into the Green Party too..
gawd.....
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian. And George did an excellent job of debunking your premise that you are.
as for your conspiracy nonsense that is so condescendingly patronizing, please, for your own sake, do not try it again.
Well, I've been very patient with you "remind". I find you extremely abrasive most of the time. I'm left-libertarian in my views, but I don't think society will get there anytime soon and probably not in my lifetime. So, I'll advocate for whatever I feel is necessary and feasible in the circumstances.
Thanks to the usual NDP folks for ruining this thread, which had nothing to do with the NDP. We need more moderators here I think. You folks would scare away all but the thickest skinned SOBs. It's a great service you are doing for progressives in Canada.
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian. And George did an excellent job of debunking your premise that you are.
as for your conspiracy nonsense that is so condescendingly patronizing, please, for your own sake, do not try it again.
Thanks to the usual NDP folks for ruining this thread, which had nothing to do with the NDP. We need more moderators here I think. You folks would scare away all but the thickest skinned SOBs. It's a great service you are doing for progressives in Canada.
You're right. There has been plenty of trolling on this thread and Remind's commentary on anything to do with the GP is almost exclusively trolling. My advice to you and John (and others who truly are interested in discussion) is ignore the trolls and carry on. Perhaps the moderators should step in but they have a lot of territory to cover and trolling is tough to police. Personally, I like the light touch the moderators here normally employ.
The language used by your guests almost scared me away..."almost" being the operative word. : D They are not your brand of "libertarian" hsf. : D But "freedom" has a nice if impossible ring to it. And, of course, "green" and "libertarian" remedies for the challenge in question will need to pre-date your demise or we are all (how would Mr. Ogilivie express it?) fucked?
The language used by your guests almost scared me away..."almost" being the operative word.
John joined here two years before I did, so I wouldn't say he's my guest.
And, of course, "green" and "libertarian" remedies for the challenge in question will need to pre-date your demise or we are all ... fucked?
I'm afraid you may be right there. We have to stop the military-industrial complex first, and the financial / banking industry, and the fossil fuel industry. Yikes...
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian.
Noam Chomsky calls himself a "libertarian socialist" - and I think this the school of thought hsfreethinkers identifies with. In fact I'd say based on the views I've seen expressed on babble I would say he is further to the left than you are.
George Victor- who appointed you arbitar of who 'belongs' here?
I'm serious, thats no rhetorical statement.
And if you are 'frightened'- spare yourself and leave the thread.
@ John Ogilvie:
"Greens are the progressive party of the 21st century."
That first decade didn't go so hot, huh?
The NDP presently holds seats in every province except Saskatchewan and PEI, holds the only non-Tory seat in Alberta, and an urban seat in downtown Montréal (which incidentally Cauchon will NOT be retaking in 2010).
It's too soon to know who will win Outremont in the next election.
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian.Noam Chomsky calls himself a "libertarian socialist" - and I think this the school of thought hsfreethinkers identifies with. In fact I'd say based on the views I've seen expressed on babble I would say he is further to the left than you are.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NDP_supporters]List of NDP supporters[/url] Chomsky fifth down the list
My advice to you and John (and others who truly are interested in discussion) is ignore the trolls and carry on. Perhaps the moderators should step in but they have a lot of territory to cover and trolling is tough to police.
Given the freight behind the word 'troll,' calling them that probably doesnt help.
But the main point I wanted to make is that if you goad back at instigators, the results are predictable.
And for the record, plenty of PC refugees in the NDP. Not to mention that we have lots of 'market oriented solutions' in our policies. The GPC may have more, but its still pot calling kettle black.
Let me elaborate on my sense of how the election financing changes affected the Greens and led to the eletcion of Elizabeth May and her team
Prior to the changes the Greens were a relatively grass roots party based on a mix of communities where a few enthusiasts could put together ridng campaigns based primarily on themselves, local resources and local control, no money and little direction from party central. With these local initiatives, the popularity of the brand name "Green" and some media attention, these campaigns could get one or two or more percent of votes in those ridings. On a national scale this put the Greens ahead of other "fringe" parties- Rhino's, M-Ls. the Greens ran more candidites and got more votes- but far behind the "big parties" that s ran a full slate of candidates, got far more votes and elected MPs.
With the election financing changes the Green national or central party was now in the big leagues. a national office with paid staff and resources to allocate where they could hopefully generate deired results. Public finance meant millions of dollars, based on crossing the national threshold test to get the $1.75 a vote (now about $2 a vote), and public financing for the central campaign. The emphasis now was on the national party, continuing to meet the threshold for the public finances, and setting new targets. One thing local Greens and the national office had to consider was that there were some ridings where the Green candidate vould be far more than a name on a ballot. Ther were ridings that could meet or exceed the new magic figure of 10% of the vote to get a riding rebate and there ridings the Greens could look at winning. There had to be some priorizing and calling of winners and losers.
My sense is the public financing led to cultural and organizational pressure on the Greens- the growth of a bureaucracy. "leader's office" and central leadership and national goals and strategies superseding local grassroots True , one new national goal was to run candidates in every riding , partly because every vote meant money coming in, but also to prove the Greens were one of the "big parties" that was a true national party that ran candidates in every riding. . But it was expected by national office most of the local candidates would lose and just so long as they did nothing to embarrass the national campaign, they could be ignored What was important was the 'winnable" ridings or what the national office and national leader deemed winnable.
What was needed was a leader a central office and a central plan to take it to the next level. winning at least one seat in Parliament. Following the financing changes the leadership of the Greens party was a tempting job given a guaranteed budget so long as the national party met the minimum threshold, lots of media attention, a realistic chance at a seat in Parliament and a chance to impact the national agenda. Enter Elizabeth May and a new team ,
Noam Chomsky calls himself a "libertarian socialist" - and I think this the school of thought hsfreethinkers identifies with. In fact I'd say based on the views I've seen expressed on babble I would say he is further to the left than you are.
Yes, I've been influenced by the writings of Chomsky and Bertrand Russell, and I identify with Left-Libertarian / Libertarian Socialist views. I did one of those political quizzes recently:
George Victor- who appointed you arbitar of who 'belongs' here?
I'm serious, thats no rhetorical statement.
And if you are 'frightened'- spare yourself and leave the thread.
Don't be silly and sanctimonious in turn, Ken. A half-century of campaigning leaves one ready to take on types who are playing a game with our future, head games that have nothing to do with recognizing that solutions to our problematic future will have to embrace ALL, with have to take care of folks who are falling farther and farther behind even as the head games continue. But while they must be challenged (you choose the route of rhetoric) I am just thoroughly sick and tired of confronting them and don't have the patience any more. We do not have the time to play the childhood games. There are real issues affecting the lives of all for which answers must be proposed and supported. If you have not, yourself, taken the time to evaluate some of the Green science fiction, the gee whiz technical solutions they propose that will mean the market can live, please do so. Otherwise, leave off the rhetoric. It grows as convoluted as their "science."
George, do you regret starting the Green Party? Do you feel guilty for the current fractured state of progressives in Canada? At the time the Greens started, we had a FPTP system. Did you consider what impact the Greens would have on the NDP should they become successful?
Hsfreethinkers, first let me say that I now believe you are exploring solutions to the political(party) impasse with real sincerity. I'll be equally honest in answering your question. Coming out of the period of social innovation of the 60s and early 70s, those of us who looked at the prospects from political economy, saw only the rise of the Chicago School, and Reagan's reactionary romp. Trudeau had gone to Galbraith (like Nixon) for answers in the early 70s, now, it was obvious the corporate culture had been handed the keys to our political futures. The New Democrats, tightly bound to labour, could not formulate environmental policies that really meant anything. The only answer seemed to lie in a party (like Petra Kelly's Greens in Germany) forcing change. Who knew that the Green idea was far too early here, and that the party would be dominated by discussions that went on forever - sort of like hereabouts - about the niceties of democracy, the meaning of "libertarian" etc. : D
It had to be tried, hsf. Should I have stayed (the leave-taking was for a decade) and "moled" from within? You might have felt as I did on parting, watching a labour delegate rise and taunt Walter Pitman on his having lost his seat in the 1971 provincial election. Labour funding and history was more important than the emerging dangers to our species. And I don't ever recall any of those folks reading predictions for Gaia.
Oh, and the Greens can become successful only if Canadians give up reading and attempting to understand our dilemma for themselves...you know, self-education and reasoning? John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards was just a product of jealousy on his part.
Hsfreethinkers, first let me say that I now believe you are exploring solutions to the political(party) impasse with real sincerity.
The arbitar graciously differentiates you from "your guests" not belonging here.
[Which doesn't poison the rest of the thoughtful answer by the way.]
Thread drift to what the Greens are about is fine. But whats wrong with the opening topic of what goes on organizationaly within the GPC, such that it leads to outright attacks on the legitimacy of the GPC to exist?
The latter as a statement is fine, but as the de facto answer to everything: thats nothing more than an attack. Granted that John mocking back does not help, but what do you expect when you attack people's legitimacy hammer and tongs?
Inviting these chaps here was an insult to the integrity of this board.
Look... if you got a problem with my personal politics, that's your issue. However, I have been nothing but respectful to this board and the other participants. I'm not recruiting, I'm not name calling, I'm not attacking anyone for their views. I was asked questions and I answered them.
If you are so concerned with the integrity of this board and the effects John and I have on it, maybe you should request the moderators remove the thread and remove us as members.
Green Tory is Mark Taylor. I'm here, too. So you have the whole set from Report on Greens :-)
I don't see why rabble (which I read daily) shouldn't be a good forum for hardcore Green discussions.
Anybody who wants to engage in Green-vs-NDP polemics can blow it out your ass, tho. We're all on the same fuck-Harper team here.
Except you're all greying Trotsky followers, and we Greens aren't :-)
...............
That was post #3 in the thread, Ken. He was not replying to a damned soul, he was being a nasty, combative prick. Now, how about that challenge to the legitimacy of their techno/scientific props for a capitalist market? Any thoughts on that (before it slides away)?
Or are we to go into yet another superficial exchange without understanding either the background or the makeup of the Green Party of Canada ? I make statements from experience. Where in CHrist is your authority coming from, Kenneth?
Hsfreethinkers, first let me say that I now believe you are exploring solutions to the political(party) impasse with real sincerity.
Great and thanks for saying so.
It had to be tried, hsf. Should I have stayed (the leave-taking was for a decade) and "moled" from within? You might have felt as I did on parting, watching a labour delegate rise and taunt Walter Pitman on his having lost his seat in the 1971 provincial election. Labour funding and history was more important than the emerging dangers to our species. And I don't ever recall any of those folks reading predictions for Gaia.
I'm not sure I get the analogy - I was a fetus residing in the UK at the time of the 1971 provincial election.
Oh, and the Greens can become successful only if Canadians give up reading and attempting to understand our dilemma for themselves...you know, self-education and reasoning?
Not sure I follow you here either. Not much luck this morning...are you saying only the hapless masses will support the Green Party and that wise folk would look elsewhere?
Libertarians do not advocate government control, regulations and all the other things you espoused above that I snerked over..as such I think you are mistaken in your statement that you are "left" libertarian. And George did an excellent job of debunking your premise that you are.as for your conspiracy nonsense that is so condescendingly patronizing, please, for your own sake, do not try it again.
Well, I've been very patient with you "remind".
You have been very patient with me? :rolleyes:
How fucking patriarchial of you to say such a thing..... and that you indicate such unmitigated nonsense is telling.
I find you extremely abrasive most of the time.
I try, guess I will have to do better and make it all the time. :rolleyes:
I'm left-libertarian in my views,
Well...given that I do not believe, no matter what Chomsky says, that there is "left Libertarians".... we will have to disagree...and as a feminist I understand Libertarianism will do nothing to advance the cause of women's equality rights...in fact you are an excellent example of why "libertarianism", either right or "left" is something espoused mainly by white men, and those few white women who want to keep the niche power spot in a man's worls.
but I don't think society will get there anytime soon and probably not in my lifetime. So, I'll advocate for whatever I feel is necessary and feasible in the circumstances.
As will I, as you simply do not have a corner on the advocation market....even though apparently you would like to think so.
Thanks to the usual NDP folks for ruining this thread, which had nothing to do with the NDP. We need more moderators here I think. You folks would scare away all but the thickest skinned SOBs. It's a great service you are doing for progressives in Canada.
Another fabrication by the Green Party supporters in this thread, please do reread post number 3 by a Green Party person, and see where challenges to Green Party postings were destined to start from and then note the fabrications of John O, which were correctly challenged to see where the actual "ruining of the thread" started from.
Talk about hypocrisy!
Now of course, I could have really yelled about post #3, but it said more about him, his presence here, and the Green Party, than about NDP supporters, so I was being nice and just challenged his fabrications and later your comments. Others caught different Green Party fabrications, and it seems ya'll don't like that we did one bit. In fact, so much so you are willing to tell yourself fabrications in order to blame others than yourselves.
Heads up, we have every right to do so. And yep I am a NDP partisan but so what? Challenging Green Party fabrications, or even Liberal ones like Lord P's, is something we all have every right to do, and without getting personally attacked for it.
Then when you venture into the area of sexist blatherings like you did towards me, well you can expect what you got, which if you really reflect truthfully upon it, was no personal attack on my part, but a telling of ya'll to stop with the fabrications, and indeed you can expect it each and every time.
And I must add, one has to love all the male gang ups on me in this thread....
what Lord P...you think you can just venture in and pile on me when you have not participated in this thread before?
And KenS, this is an example of an actual "pile on", which indeed you yourself unwarrantedly participated in, so in future keep such comments to yourself.
The ugly sexist nature of this board is shinning through.
This thread is a good example of how babble threads can degenerate over just about anything.
Without trying to get precise about when exactly, its been mostly mudslinging back and forth for about 50 posts. Since we're getting close to that 100 post mark, and the mudslinging isn't over yet, that will probably about do it.
If someone sees in the discussion a question or topic of interest they would like to have seen continue, you could always start a new thread.
I don't know the history, perhaps someone here can fill me in: is the Green Party Canada related to the European Green Party, or is it a different entity altogether?
If someone sees in the discussion a question or topic of interest they would like to have seen continue, you could always start a new thread.
Well, if I have any more questions on the original topic I will just contact Mark and John privately. We should have been able to have this discussion here.
Well, if I have any more questions on the original topic I will just contact Mark and John privately. We should have been able to have this discussion here.
Broader discussions are always better. Aside from involving more people in collective education, they are more likely to have 'qualitative reach'... if they don't get bogged down. Bogged down is always the risk when people feel a lot at stake. But I think its worth trying more than once.
Not necessarily here. I'm sure Mark would be up for consulting on a new topic for Report on Greens... how to frame it so it can attract more than the usual suspects. Even dissident forums fall into their own ruts, and are helped by a good 'cnstructive contrarian'. Babblers Dan Grice and mimeguy have both played that role at ROG.
And/or try again here with a new thread title. Us mudslingers even tire ourselves, and are known to pass up retry's at the discussion. :)
I don't know the history, perhaps someone here can fill me in: is the Green Party Canada related to the European Green Party, or is it a different entity altogether?
You mean the European Green parties, plural, I presume? Its both: related and with a lot of distinctions among them. Same as social democratic parties.
No relationship, Boomer. And Petra Kelly wound up murdered by her older (much older) "partner"- a chap retired from the Werhmacht, as I recall. The Greens in Germany are very, very practical...but they may rue putting down nuclear power when Russia takes them for a walk down the natural gas garden path.
But it seems that the questions around the very need for "green thinking" ( species survival) do not come before interminable chatter about organization and control of party machinery. Do not seek to undeerstand, for instance, the means by which technology and market economics will be harnessed side by side on our heating Earth. Avoid answering anything to do with such nitty gritty questions. Go, instead, for the moral juglar and the completely irrelevant.
Thanks, Ken, I'll do a Google or Wiki and educate myself on the Greens better. 
ETA: oops, I posted before I saw your reply, George. Thanks for the info!
