NDP continues to challenge the extension of Canadian military presence in Afghanistan

I already could not keep track of how many overlapping threads we have on this topic.

If this a succesor thread? If so, which one?

If not, what is the differentiation that justifies its existence.

If its just because of the tone in the others slamming the NDP, in the first place, I dont think that justifies a fifthe thread, or however many it is. But more to the point: its an exercise in futility, because either the thread will be ignored and sink below the waves, or surprise, surprise... it will have the same discussion and disscussants.

George Victor wrote:

NDP speakers in Parliament are relentlessly condemning the extension.

Got a quote?

George. You should chill out 90% of your posts over the last few days have been personal attacks, and void of any real content. He asked you for a quote. You don't have one. Simple.

I did. No content. No quote.

Shurely you mean Unionist's sleazy game.

Say, that is a principled statement by Olivia Chow.  Thus far, it represents about as close to an official policy statement on the issue of troop deployments that we've seen from the NDP, without having to resort to weasel words like 'mission' in the same sentence as withdrawal, which until now has been used to obscure what they might ultimately be persuaded to support.

I dont recant anything either Unionsist.

Lets recount how that actually played out.

People asked, repeatedly, why didnt the NDP just come out and call for withdrawl, instead of getting diverted into this carap about having a debate and a vote.

My mistake is taking those literally as the questions they are phrased as; instead of taking them as just rhetorical props that are part of statements about the NDP... including that the NDP doesnt simply call for withdrawal because its just going to declare victory that the combat mission is over.

So deserved or not, and wise or not, I treat the questions as questions. I stand by the answer I gave, You make full use of tools you have [and by the way, no one ever argued that there was any harm being done by for a bit focusing on the demand for the promised vote/debate]. Exploit the political advantages offered up while they last. Use them as capital when you move on to focusing on the substance itself. The fact that only lasted 2/3 days doesnt make it any different.

So I answered the 'questions' asked. You dont bother disagrreing in any way, shape or form. Just stand back on the sidelines and sneer when you see an opportunity.

Fill your boots. Keep wearing it with pride dude.

And point of information- I'm not here to defend politicians.

Oddly enough Unionist, I'm here to do the same thing you think you and the other hardy souls are the only ones doing: cutting through bullshit.

Fidel wrote:

Olivia Chow is not an independent MP. She speaks for all of the NDP. She's on our team.

I truly hope that's the case. Unfortunately, on the very same web page of Hansard that I cited above, Jack didn't once say what she said. He fulminated on and on about the same stuff he's been saying the last few days - never once said, "end the war, bring the troops home". I'm sure he will. But only if we keep the pressure up.

KenS wrote:

On that particular point, we cant tell yet Unionist. Because the you always praise when you get exactly what you wanted. When the NDP position unfolds in its entirety, we'll see what you are saying.

And even if I'm wrong on that count  Unionist, that doesnt make you not a bullshit peddler who stands on the sidelines waiting for the next opportnity to sneer.

With much regret, I've had to flag your post as "offensive", which I don't think I've ever done with you. But maybe (for a big change) some moderator will take note and remind you that a personal attack against one is a personal attack against all and against this board.

Now, repeat after me: "I was wrong on this one little point. I retract it. I will let facts and real-life experience be my guide."

The plus of it all is that the official opposition party will pay with even more loss of popular support for refusing yet again to actually oppose this weak Tory government.

The Harpers have tried to save their BFF, the Liberal Party, from further embarrassment of not opposing the government by declaring that there will be no House vote on the matter this time.

But Canadians are seeing this as yet one more instance when the Liberals are in cahoots with Harper's unReformed-Tories as per usual.

Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story. They are one and the same. Charade they are.

Rpeat after me Unionst: "We cant judge yet whether Ken is wrong."

I was merely making the point that IF it turns out I'm wrong, it just means I'm wrong on that point. There's a lot more going on her than that point.

But just so we can be clear on where the goalposts are for that particular point:

1. You and others "asked" why cant the NDP just call for withdrawl. And stated that the NDP will find a way to be satisfied with a declared end to the "combat mission". [Thats the mild version- plenty of saying the NDP will declare victory.]

2. I predicted that when the NDP does just call for withdrawl, what they originaly said the NDP would not be, wont be enough. That does not just referr to the moment you happen to recognise withdrawl has been called for- especially since this isnt by any means the first time while this discussion has been going on here.

When the whole NDP position and positioning comes out, we'll say what you and others are saying. Because its originally the message that the NDP will not call for withdrawl, and if only it would. Period.

Cueball wrote:

Unionist's position on this has been consistent on this issue for years. I wouldn't call that bullshit. I would call it having a position. Bullshit is demanding that someone endorse a political position simply for the sake of perceived tactical value for a party.

I have NEVER said that the NDP's position should be supported. Thats merely the presumptive ad hominem reduction.

I do make demands on critics.

Nor do I say That Unionsts positions are bullshit. In fact, he's so frequently cagey about the specifics, I dont always know what they are- though I could predict them. But I like to ask people to spell it out, maybe even defend it you know.

What I'm calling bullshit is the discussion practice. Make statements. If someone critices said statements, dont disagree with the substance. Ignore them. Wait till later. When opportunity arises, sneer the same statement or a very closely related variant. [Maybe as a "question".] Ignore again. Repeat later if you feel like it.

KenS wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Unionist's position on this has been consistent on this issue for years. I wouldn't call that bullshit. I would call it having a position. Bullshit is demanding that someone endorse a political position simply for the sake of perceived tactical value for a party.

I have NEVER said that the NDP's position should be supported. Thats merely the presumptive ad hominem reduction.

I do make demands on critics.

Nor do I say That Unionsts positions are bullshit. In fact, he's so frequently cagey about the specifics, I dont always know what they are- though I could predict them. But I like to ask people to spell it out, maybe even defend it you know.

What I'm calling bullshit is the discussion practice. Make statements. If someone critices said statements, dont disagree with the substance. Ignore them. Wait till later. When opportunity arises, sneer the same statement or a very closely related variant. [Maybe as a "question".] Ignore again. Repeat later if you feel like it.

I think you are taking this far too personally.

Things like the praise of Olivia Chow are absolutely sincere. Coming from everyone. No exceptions.

But coming from some people they are also part of a well established 'discussion' routine of good cop bad cop.

Its not either / or.

Who are these "some" people?

George Victor wrote:

Actually that should read, Liberal, Labour, Tory, it's the same old story, Fidel. There has to be an excuse when the flock takes to the high ground and leaves the unorganized to their own fate.  An unearthly - certainly on the hustings - moral purity fills the bill. "mushy" is indefensible among the priesthood.

They really hate the NDP for exposing this charade in Ottawa the way they have. Canadians had to find out some time though.

KenS wrote:

Cueball wrote:

No. It was assessed that based on the NDP past mushy peformance on this issue that it was too early to tell. Various people then tried to argue that the NDP should be trusted on this issue and was rock solid all along. When people tried to argue that bizarre idea, people then had to establish the facts. The facts being that the NDP has been far from solid on this issue, something you yourself eventually agreed.

Disingenuous, or slippery memory, on two major counts. That is WAY soft pedalling revisionism to say that you all were only saying it was too early to tell what the NDPs position was. The dominant line was that the NDP was GOING to declare satisfaction/victory with the declared end of the "combat mission." There was no qualification of that. And I sure as hell didnt say the NDP was to be trusted on the issue and was rock solid all along. The fact that is your impression means nothing.

And I have ALWAYS said that the NDP has been far from consistent. Its not something I "eventually agreed to". I even explicitly recognized that inconsitency, but that it isnt a basis for unqualified statements that the NDP will rationalize that the end of the "combat mission" is good enough.

Now that is disingenuous. Indeed on November 14th at around 10 pm, I said this:

Cueball wrote:

Not really relevant. Basically all that anyone said is that the NDP has not been firm on this issue in the past, despite the fact that they had the mandate from the party membership to be firm on this issue. In that light, do you mind if those of us who have been observing these machinations, reserves judgement on the NDP's present position, as opposed to jumping up and down with delight?

I was jumping up and down with delight in 2006. This time I will wait and see how the NDP actually performs on the issue.

This was a reiteration of my previous stated positions.

Who could we possibly be provoking if we are trolling? The only babblers associated with any political party are us NDPers. Who could we possibly be offending since no one here advocates for any other of the 20 some-odd registered political parties?

Like they often say at these kinds of things, nobody here but us NDPers. And we're proud of it. We are not ashamed to wear our colours in the light of day. No fear!

George, you need to stop starting threads with oblique personal attacks. One more time and you'll be taking a break. Try talking about the issues rather than babblers you dislike or with whom you disagree. It will help you focus.

KenS, your attack on Unionist is not allowed, right? Everyone agrees in this thread. Let's follow Frmrsldr's comment and celebrate Chow's encouraging statement.

KenS wrote:

@ al-Q: the issue isnt about me. Thats pretty obvious.

But I think its safe to say that the dispute is about me and Unionist.

That may be, but you sure seem to be taking this personally:

Quote:

I have NEVER said that the NDP's position should be supported. Thats merely the presumptive ad hominem reduction.

I do make demands on critics.

Nor do I say That Unionsts positions are bullshit. In fact, he's so frequently cagey about the specifics, I dont always know what they are- though I could predict them. But I like to ask people to spell it out, maybe even defend it you know.

Then again, George Victor claims responsibility for this discussion, so maybe it's all about him.

Do places like babble actually influence anyone in the NDP federal caucus?