NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

Terry, you are incorrect on the facts. You continue to insist on this silliness. This is troilling behaviour, I think. 

Please flag my post. I really want to be flagged too. 

-

Let's try this. 

me: I believe you are made entirely of cheese, Terry. 

Terry: I can prove I am in fact human. Here is the DNA evidence. 

me: I stand by my story. E-mail the cheese council if you disagree. WHY HAVEN'T YOU E-MAILED THE CHEESE COUNCIL!!11!!? YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME!

-

This is the level of foolishness we are now at. 

Your behaviour is making Joy Taylor cry. 

terrytowel wrote:

swallow wrote:

Your behaviour is making Joy Taylor cry. 

Pretty bad you are mocking party activist Joy Taylor, I guess when long time activists go against the party they are persona non grata.

But kropotkin1951 accusses me of insulting people, yet is silent with other socialists on this board make personal attacks against the non-socialist people.

what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

terrytowel wrote:

But kropotkin1951 accusses me of insulting people, yet is silent with other socialists on this board make personal attacks against the non-socialist people.

I react to you in the way I do because of the way you are. Especially your insistence on flagging everyone who doesn't like your posting style. You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

terrytowel wrote:

quizzical wrote:

what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

spare me the falsehoods.

all of sudden you start carrying on about "socialists" and "non-socialists" here, and in another thread.

you're attempting to set up some kinda labelling dichotomy. don't.

terrytowel wrote:

So it is my fault that people make personal attacks against me. I'm bringing this all on myself. Is that correct?

According to your logic, if I walk down the street without a shirt on & shake my chest in front of people. I'm inviting people to attack me. Correct?

You obviously don't understand logic very well. So no I don't agree with your illogical statement.

However if you walk down the street and poke everyone that walks by it is logical to presume some of them will poke back. Its then that you blow your whistle to call a bobby while screaming, "I've been poked I've been poked."

There you go, deliberately misinterpreting my words to turn them into a personal insult against me. You don't discuss anything directly you use a posting style that is both obtuse and in your face simultaneously. When you add in your flouncing over every negative reaction to that style it tends to be  very annoying.

According to you deliberately bugging people is alright. We get that already. Anything else you would like to add? That is what your posts read like. Deliberate attempts to provoke a negative reaction from the majority of posters on this board.

terrytowel wrote:

Nobody 'asks' for abuse back, no mater how annoying they might be. Any social justice activist realizes that.

I have not said that. Once again you are changing the content of people's posts to turn them in to a slag.

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

I can't count the number of times I've been flagged by Terryt...l. It is a badge of honour for me. Debater asks who Audrey McLaughlin is supporting. She came out for Tom a couple weeks back. It is amusing that Althia Raj is so widely quoted by a certain person as if she is some oracle. In fact she is probably the most anti-NDP "journalist" out there.

Nicky, why don't you just agree to stop calling him "Terryt...l"?

If the two of you could resolve this issue, we could move on to focusing on the topic at hand, rather than having half the thread taken up with this back & forth between you and Terry Towel.

I suspect that if Terry what's his name would stop opening threads like this one with an inaccurate thread title that appears to be a deliberate poke in the eye to NDP partisans then the discussion would not degenerate into name calling. When called on the inaccuracies he does not correct them which leads many people to believe it is deliberate provocation which on most sites is considered mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling").

There you go again. In the quote above I did not say the kid asked for it. I merely described a sequence of events. You seem incapable of understanding my posts so I guess I'll just leave you to it.

I did not say they asked for it. Those are your words not mine. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

swallow wrote:

 No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Well said.  The cult of the leader started with Jack and Tom took it even further. The NDP needs a leadership style change and Tom is not the person to do it so he needs to go and bring in a leader who will be the first among equals in the caucus.

swallow wrote:

So on topic..... No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

wage zombie wrote:

swallow wrote:

So on topic..... No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

Can you give us a quick precis of what they were saying? I promise I will not attack you if it is not 110% accurate. Are you at the convention?

Terry - no "lies" - one lie, and that's the thread title, as you've been told many times. For Nicky's non-use of the terryt..l line, see Nicky's most recent post, which did not use it. 

Inspired by kropotkin, I will henceforth stay on topic; apologies for responding to the trolling. 

Debater wrote:

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

No, it is not. 

But let's dare to hope that something else is possible. The Quebec Solidaire model is one way to go - the party could hardly be less leader-centric (no cult around Pierre-Paul St-Onge!). I don't want to believe that because something is increasingly common, it is somehow more acceptable. Support for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is also increasingly common, but presumably we'd all agree it's still undesirable. Same for the leader-obsession of the discussion around the NDP convention - there are other things that matter more than who leads. Re-imagining the way we understand leadership and participation on politics is one way to go. On that front, see some recent moves by Justin Trudeau, even. 

Debater wrote:

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

I don't.

Quote:

Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Parties that are worthy of being flushed down the nearest toilet, yes.

Quote:

Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

Those who focus on leaders are pitiable. They will never change the world. I don't frankly differentiate between self-designated slaves that follow the NDP, or Liberal, or Conservative, or Communist, or Green, or any other Dictator. Such "followers" are a far greater threat to democracy than the Trudeaus and Harpers and Mulcairs whom they follow. The devotees of the Cult of the Leader should give their heads a shake and consider that maybe, just maybe, they have their own brain and heart.

So I hope you have my answer, Debater. Leaders should go to hell - but as long as they have Followers, they will continue to flourish and destroy our world.

Wha?

Left Turn wrote:

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

Debater wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

bs. they're trying to spin it in a way to make it all seem negative. it's how they're choosing to portray words said.