Okely-dokely.
But who was Neimoller talking about?
Let's do it Jeopardy style.
The _azis
Can you solve the puzzle, Arthur? Or do you need to buy a vowel?
Trudeau: "BDS movement has 'no place' on university campuses"; ANOTHER Bozo eruption...
Mon, 2015-03-16 21:10
#52
Mon, 2015-03-16 21:49
#53
Arthur Cramer
Okely-dokely.
But who was Neimoller talking about?
Let's do it Jeopardy style.
The _azisCan you solve the puzzle, Arthur? Or do you need to buy a vowel?
Grow up.
Mon, 2015-03-16 21:53
#54
You people should stop your stupid childish asinine exchanges. This is an important topic for Canadians and the whole world. And no, Arthur, exposing Mulcair as having the same stand as Trudeau is not "deflection" - quite the contrary.
Mulcair spewed out his "Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East" racist colonial lie 4 years ago, when he needed to muzzle Libby Davies. Here's Gideon Levy's take on that, on the eve of Israel's phony election:
[url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.647198]Israeli occupiers, go to the polls[/url]
There is no other country in which millions of its subjects are denied the right to vote. And Israel calls itself a democracy?
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:02
#55
Don't want to split too many hairs here. Mulcair's comment was shameful, as is the party's continued support of Israel generally. That said, party discipline is a very different thing from public speech. To say that contradicting your party in public is out of line, is not at all the same thing as saying that the issue shouldn't be discussed. I'm sure he'd say something similar if a caucus member was to speak out against raising corporate taxes, though that wouldn't mean that he was against anyone talking about the subject.
But Justin's comment that a subject has no place in a University is far more insidious. Universities are the place that any and all issues and viewpoints get debated. It is the most appropriate venue for ideas generally. If you don't think that something should be discussed in a University, then you basically don't believe that it should be discussed at all. Which is a scary position for a person running for Prime Minister to be taking on any issue. If, god forbid, we are unlucky enough to be burdened with Justin as a PM, will he be giving us a list of things that aren't to be talked about? Verboten subjects for his subjects?
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:09
#56
Seriously? He destroyed his country, murdered millions and offed himself in the end. Just how do you define 'success'? Over-reached? Really? I mean hey, if using Hitler as a model for successful leadership in support of Trudeau ... OMG ... again, really?Whether or not a person supports a political party (or leader) is separate from how that party or leader is performing. Hitler, for example, was an extremely successful leader even if he over-reached in the end.
This Pondering's version of Godwin's Law. She eventually invoked the name of Hitler but in a GOOD way. If it wasn't for those damn Russian winters who knows what further successes awaited him.
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:10
#57
Grow up.
Very well. Let's try a 50/50 question.
Even a coin has a one in two chance of getting it right.
Who was Niemoller talking about?
a) the Nazis
b) the Liberals
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:13
#58
The issue is that Trudeau will pander with people's rights if he thinks it'll get him votes.
For me, the issue is that BDS and IAW are under attack from politicians of all stripes. Trudeau's comments are abhorrent, but to pretend that he's an exceptionally spineless politician when it comes to defending the right to criticize Israel is the real deflection.
I remind all of you defending Trudeau of what Niemoller said about "they came for x, but I wasn't x, so I didn't say anything".
So what's Mulcair saying in support of BDS and IAW?
Why does it matter? It doesn't. This thread is about the fact he thinks BDS advocates should shut up. It isn't hard to understand. You're deflecting.
Why does what matter? Do you mean why does it matter what Mulcair thinks? I don't know. Probably for the same reason it matters what Trudeau thinks. Why do you think it doesn't matter?
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:25
#59
*
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:25
#60
Don't want to split too many hairs here. Mulcair's comment was shameful, as is the party's continued support of Israel generally. That said, party discipline is a very different thing from public speech. To say that contradicting your party in public is out of line, is not at all the same thing as saying that the issue shouldn't be discussed. I'm sure he'd say something similar if a caucus member was to speak out against raising corporate taxes, though that wouldn't mean that he was against anyone talking about the subject.
Libby said she thought there should be a space in the party for discussing the boycott issue. And she said that was her personal view. Are you seriously suggesting that she was contradicting something in the party policy book, or violating some hitherto unpublicized caucus decision? Show me, please.
Yeah, you're splitting hairs in my opinion. When it comes to Israel, Harper and Trudeau and Mulcair are cut from the same cloth. And it's no surprise that it was Mulcair - not Layton - who blew a gasket initially over Libby's slip of the tongue "1948" remark, and then expanded it to make it clear that any meaningful opposition to Israeli policy couldn't be discussed, never mind adopted.
Thankfully, there are many NDP supporters, including the youth wing, who won't tolerate sitting by smugly while Israel massacres Gazans, for example. They've forced Mulcair to at least modify some public statements.
That could never happen in the Liberal party.
So there's still hope.
Mon, 2015-03-16 22:40
#61
Yeah, you're splitting hairs in my opinion. When it comes to Israel, Harper and Trudeau and Mulcair are cut from the same cloth.
I totally agree. That wasn't the hair I meant to split. I was saying that there's a difference between saying "This shouldn't be discussed in our party", and "This shouldn't be discussed in Universities". Both are bad, but the second is worse, because the first doesn't imply that nobody should discuss it, while the second clearly does.
I certainly didn't mean to defend Mulcair's terrible treatment of Libby. She has always been my favourite Canadian politician and Mulcair's harrassment of her is the biggest strike against him as a leader and a person.
Thankfully, there are many NDP supporters, including the youth wing, who won't tolerate sitting by smugly while Israel massacres Gazans, for example. They've forced Mulcair to at least modify some public statements.
That could never happen in the Liberal party.
So there's still hope.
This has always been my political calculus in supporting the NDP. I mean, they're obviously the only party worth voting for, but that alone won't guarantee anything positive comes of an NDP government. What might is the fact that the NDP is much more susceptible to public pressure than the other parties. Sadly, I doubt the public has enough outrage over Israel for this to be such an issue. But hey, if we can get the NDP in office, the people might surprise me. Stranger things have happened.
Mon, 2015-03-16 23:04
#62
Oh, aren't you clever. Are you trying to suggest you can't understand how applicable Niemoller's comments are to all of us?
Really cute. Yep, you're handle fits you. Get your perscription fixed.
OK.
But who was Niemoller talking about?
Godwin got your tongue?
Niemoller was talking about the need to stand with any group facing oppression. Niemoller wasn't saying that only antisemitism was oppression. And Niemoller would never have argued that antisemitism and Naziism in Christian Europe justifies what the Israeli government and the illegal West Bank settlers do to Palestinians. And you know it.
Mon, 2015-03-16 23:22
#63
Yeah, you're splitting hairs in my opinion. When it comes to Israel, Harper and Trudeau and Mulcair are cut from the same cloth.
I totally agree. That wasn't the hair I meant to split. I was saying that there's a difference between saying "This shouldn't be discussed in our party", and "This shouldn't be discussed in Universities". Both are bad, but the second is worse, because the first doesn't imply that nobody should discuss it, while the second clearly does.
I certainly didn't mean to defend Mulcair's terrible treatment of Libby. She has always been my favourite Canadian politician and Mulcair's harrassment of her is the biggest strike against him as a leader and a person.
Thankfully, there are many NDP supporters, including the youth wing, who won't tolerate sitting by smugly while Israel massacres Gazans, for example. They've forced Mulcair to at least modify some public statements.
That could never happen in the Liberal party.
So there's still hope.
This has always been my political calculus in supporting the NDP. I mean, they're obviously the only party worth voting for, but that alone won't guarantee anything positive comes of an NDP government. What might is the fact that the NDP is much more susceptible to public pressure than the other parties. Sadly, I doubt the public has enough outrage over Israel for this to be such an issue. But hey, if we can get the NDP in office, the people might surprise me. Stranger things have happened.
This is exactly how I feel. It's not that Mulcair is a saint and Trudeau is a devil but that the membership of the NDP is more open to left policies and that hopefully puts pressure on the leadership and the simple truth is that there is that the Liberals and Tories are much less open to progressive ideas at the grassroots level.
Mon, 2015-03-16 23:39
#64
Arthur Cramer
Oh, aren't you clever. Are you trying to suggest you can't understand how applicable Niemoller's comments are to all of us?
Really cute. Yep, you're handle fits you. Get your perscription fixed.
OK.
But who was Niemoller talking about?
Godwin got your tongue?
Niemoller was talking about the need to stand with any group facing oppression. Niemoller wasn't saying that only antisemitism was oppression. And Niemoller would never have argued that antisemitism and Naziism in Christian Europe justifies what the Israeli government and the illegal West Bank settlers do to Palestinians. And you know it.
Thanks Ken!
Tue, 2015-03-17 01:17
#65
Niemoller was talking about the need to stand with any group facing oppression. Niemoller wasn't saying that only antisemitism was oppression. And Niemoller would never have argued that antisemitism and Naziism in Christian Europe justifies what the Israeli government and the illegal West Bank settlers do to Palestinians. And you know it.
Evidently, Niemoller was very, very against Germany's policy of discrimination against Christians of Jewish background. Not so much Jews, of Jewish background, about whom he said "What is the reason for [their] obvious punishment, which has lasted for thousands of years? Dear brethren, the reason is easily given: the Jews brought the Christ of God to the cross!"
I won't say "And you know it" because I expect that very few people who quote him know it.
Anyway, enough about Niemoller. This is about JUSTIN!!!!!!!!
Tue, 2015-03-17 22:46
#66
If it's about Justin, why are you using Niemoller to bait Arthur?
Tue, 2015-03-17 23:24
#67
If it's about Justin, why are you using Niemoller to bait Arthur?
I think Mr. Magoo is a bit of a prankster.
Wed, 2015-03-18 00:23
#68
If it's about Justin, why are you using Niemoller to bait Arthur?
He appeared to be invoking Niemoller -- who I think we would all agree was talking about Hitler and the Nazis -- in reference to Trudeau.
Now I totally get that the Liberals, and of course Trudeau, are super-duper, world-class, best-of-breed evil. But I don't feel like Trudeau is really ready to be Godwinned quite yet.
That help?
When I said "This is about JUSTIN!!!!!!!!" I figured the eight exclamation marks would make it clear that I was being facetious.
Seriously, though, don't you think the depth and breadth of animus toward Justin and the Liberals here at babble is starting to get a bit ridiculous? I'm not a Trudeau supporter and I won't be voting Liberal, but it seems to me that nearly every thread here at babble has at least some kind of outraged reference to Justin, the Liberals, or their supporters in it, with the possible exception of a food thread or two.
Can someone explain the need for it? Can they do so without using their explanation as the opportunity for YET ANOTHER swipe? The election is still quite a ways away. Is this only going to ramp up?
Wed, 2015-03-18 01:05
#69
Indeed it is.
Wed, 2015-03-18 13:37
#70
swallow
A thread on "the new Liberalphobia" is jsut around the corner.
Wed, 2015-03-18 14:33
#71
I'm surprised we don't also have a thread about "Liberalsplaining".
Thing is, the non-Liberals seem just as hard done by and aggreived, if not moreso.
Wed, 2015-03-18 18:10
#72
Maybe if the propaganda agents weren't stirring the pot it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but guess what its been this way since I joined over a decade ago. It comes and goes, but with another even more useless leader somehow riding higher in the polls than he possibly should given how bad his performance has been, its probably another reaosn why.
Wed, 2015-03-18 19:51
#73
Maybe if the propaganda agents weren't stirring the pot it wouldn't be as much of an issue
What gives them the right to support someone else?
WHAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT???
Thu, 2015-03-19 15:58
#74
montrealer58
There always seems to be this existential question from certain quarters "why" we must always be "criticizing" the "Liberals".
1. Canada still has free speech. It is not illegal to criticize a political party.
2. There are many sources of media which are totally devoted to gushing over Liberals. Huffington Post Canada. Toronto Star. CBC, just to name 3.
3. This website does not have a stated goal of gushing over Liberals. If you read the articles on the main rabble pages, you will see articles which are not friendly to the Liberals by any means necessary.
4. Therefore, people will always criticize the Liberals on this website.
5. Therefore, get over it.
Thu, 2015-03-19 16:04
#75
Would it be possible to criticize them like grown ups?
Thu, 2015-03-19 17:43
#76
No.
Thu, 2015-03-19 20:18
#77
Would it be possible to criticize them like grown ups?
You mean as if they were grown-ups?
Thu, 2015-03-19 20:31
#78
Zing!!
But that is kind of the thing I'm talking about, so thanks for that.
Thu, 2015-03-19 20:34
#79
Would it be possible to criticize them like grown ups?
NO since they don't try to be adults.
Thu, 2015-03-19 21:35
#80
What a treasure you are, Magoo. So glad you have come back to us.
Thu, 2015-03-19 21:44
#81
I'm pleased to have made his aquaintance. He seems to be an equal opportunity shit-disturber.
Thu, 2015-03-19 22:00
#82
What a treasure you are, Magoo. So glad you have come back to us.
I'm not the hero babble wanted, I'm the hero babble needed.
Thu, 2015-03-19 23:05
#83
The Snark Knight!
Thu, 2015-03-19 23:10
#84
Well, if you're really interested, I feel that arguing with idiots is an indulgence no matter how you look at it, so there's little point in trying to put a veneer of maturity over it. It's like saying, "Can we get through this game of twister like adults, please?" Basically I have these arguments specifically to be childish. There's no other kind of discussion you could have with these jokers.
Thu, 2015-03-19 23:47
#85
Basically I have these arguments specifically to be childish.
To each his own but you are being unfair and disrespectful to babble.
Thu, 2015-03-19 23:55
#86
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/18/john-moore-no-trudeau-didnt-comp...
Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet. There is no record of Marie Antoinette saying, “Let them eat cake.” Nor does the Mother Superior in The Sound of Music utter the words, “Maria, what is it you can’t face?!”
And Justin Trudeau did not recently compare Canada’s treatment of Muslims to the Holocaust.....
Mr. Trudeau linked these two references to our oft-forgotten Jew hating to similar cases involving minorities: the internship of Japanese Canadians and the Komagata Maru incident, in which another ship was turned away (this one full of Sikhs from India).
The point, of course, is not that our contemporary treatment of Muslims is equivalent to the Holocaust, but that the demonizing of newcomers has a long and established history in Canada and in its time each instance has been widely popular.
But let's not allow the message to get in the way of a good attack angle.
Sat, 2015-03-21 01:47
#87
Basically I have these arguments specifically to be childish.To each his own but you are being unfair and disrespectful to babble.
Is there nothing you can't misunderstand? As you say above, never let the truth get in the way of your attacks, eh? I was clearly talking only about the times I lower myself to your and Debater's level to puncture your nonsense. Other conversations I have are perfectly civil, so the disrespect was exclusively to you. The only way to be mature with you is to ignore you. So when I'm doing that, you can tell I'm not being amused by your childish antics.
Sun, 2015-03-22 20:09
#88
Is there nothing you can't misunderstand? As you say above, never let the truth get in the way of your attacks, eh? I was clearly talking only about the times I lower myself to your and Debater's level to puncture your nonsense. Other conversations I have are perfectly civil, so the disrespect was exclusively to you. The only way to be mature with you is to ignore you. So when I'm doing that, you can tell I'm not being amused by your childish antics.Basically I have these arguments specifically to be childish.To each his own but you are being unfair and disrespectful to babble.
I'm not the one launching personal attacks, you are. All bullies justify their attacks by citing the other person's transgressions but there is no excuse. That you restrict your bullying to the people you don't like is typical of bullies. You're trying to get me to descend to your level to mask your behavior.
Sun, 2015-03-22 23:00
#89
I'm not the one launching personal attacks, you are.
Personal attacks I would have no problem with. They may be against babble policy but I have no issue with them. If someone sincerely thinks I'm a jerk (as you once put it) then I would rather hear that honestly. Even your spurious logic and shoddy reasoning wouldn't bug me too much if it weren't painfully obvious how deliberately you're doing this. You intentionally run your opponents in circles with arguments that you know are nonsense to frustrate and demoralise them. You're just a bad person.
All bullies justify their attacks by citing the other person's transgressions but there is no excuse. That you restrict your bullying to the people you don't like is typical of bullies.
It really isn't. Bullies attack people weaker than them regardless of their character. Whether you're a good or bad person means nothing to a bully. Only that you're an easy target. I'm not sure what the definition of "weaker" is on a message board, but I don't think you qualify by any measure. Certainly if we go by sheer volume of posts, I am the David to your Goliath.
You're trying to get me to descend to your level to mask your behavior.
Except I never act this way with anyone but you and Debater (and sometimes terrytowel when he starts acting like you two). That would be wrong, because you guys are the only ones who deserve this kind of treatment. So by my reckoning, I'm the one descending to your level.