babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Now they have an MP, so Let's Talk about the Greens

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Now they have an MP, so Let's Talk about the Greens
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 31 August 2008 09:20 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To start with, here is a quote from a CTV reader/viewer, that submitted their point of view in response to an article on the CTV website.

quote:
Smitherenzes
Unfortunately for Ms May, a Green MP will not be sitting in the House. There will be an election call before that happens. So after that there will still be no Green MP in the House.

As for the debate, thats for parties that elect MPs to give them party status. And a partisan poll does not accomplish that. When the Greens have party status then they can debate. Until then they are irrelevant.


I asked someone about the election debate rules and apparently there is a website where they are written down - does anyone here know what the address of that website is?

Secondly seeing as they now have an MP I asked some folks today what they thought of the Greens. I was talking with some younger folks (25-30 years old) and their impression was that the Greens are progressive.

So regardless of what us folks here at babble think about the Greens, there definitely is a perception out there, in at least certain quarters, that the Greens are progressive.

But the idea behind this thread is to discuss what the Greens actually represent as far as policies go.

For example, what is the Green position on poverty in this country - is it even an issue for the Greens? And if so, what is the Green policy to reduce and eliminate poverty in Canada.

What is the Green position on privatizing health care? Are the Greens supportive of doing that?

What is the Green position on national defence?

What is the Green position on tuition fees for students?

And so on.

The Greens now have an MP, so there is no reason for them to be shy about any Green positions any longer.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
genstrike
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15179

posted 31 August 2008 09:34 PM      Profile for genstrike   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From what I've heard, there seem to be two types of greens; left greens and "eco-capitalists". It will be interesting to see how exactly things will pan out, although with a former Liberal as their only MP, I can easily predict which side will have the bigger voice.

Regarding tuition, I seem to recall the Greens in Manitoba criticizing Doer from the left for allowing tuition to increase for law students at the University of Mantioba... as an engineering student at the U of M that really resonates with me because a few years later I had the exact same shit go down in my faculty, and am winding up paying a lot more these days. Of course, a local NDP candidate tried to justify the fee increase to me after I had been organizing against it...

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ]


From: winnipeg | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 31 August 2008 09:42 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:

But the idea behind this thread is to discuss what the Greens actually represent as far as policies go.


Their Green Vision was released almost a year ago. It runs 157 pages and covers everything you ask about.

The Green Vision was discussed here on babble.

The Green Vision itself can be found here.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 31 August 2008 09:43 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So whose's the progressive political party there? Thank's for that example genstrike, because this is the beginning of the kind of discussion I would like to have.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 31 August 2008 09:47 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Their Green Vision was released almost a year ago. It runs 157 pages and covers everything you ask about.

The Green Vision was discussed here on babble.

The Green Vision itself can be found here.


Submitting links is not what this thread is all about. This is thread to have discussions about Green policies. For example Trevormkidd, what is it that you like about the Green platform on tuition fees?

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 31 August 2008 10:21 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
snore
From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 31 August 2008 10:49 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:

Submitting links is not what this thread is all about. This is thread to have discussions about Green policies. For example Trevormkidd, what is it that you like about the Green platform on tuition fees?


Um no, your first post asked what the Green Party position was on things like privatizing health care, national defence, tuition fees etc. I provided the links which would provide such answers if you really cared.

Your first post was not about what we or I like about such policies and it was specifically not about people's perceptions of those policies. Maybe others can tell you what they feel, but after what seems like a couple hundred threads over the last year about the Green Party, I have little interest in entering such a debate yet again with someone who hates the Green Party or rehashing the areas where I agree/disagree with the GPC and NDP.

If you are actually interested in where the Greens stand on issues then you can find those answers by following the links I provided. If you are interested in a debate which past experiecne shows will quickly be dragged into the mud and turned into "GPC/May hate" thread then I am sure someone else will indulge you.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 31 August 2008 10:59 PM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Babble is a discussion forum Trevormkidd.

Why would one is afraid to discuss their party's policies unless of course..........


From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 31 August 2008 11:03 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:
Babble is a discussion forum Trevormkidd.

Why would one is afraid to discuss their party's policies unless of course..........


It is a discussion forum. That doesn't mean that I must be obliged to engage in the same discussions every single day.

You said that you wanted to know what the Green Party positions were on various issues. I showed you where you could find those answers. Instead of looking at the platform which you clearly were not actually interesting in doing, you are pissed at me for not agreeing to play your GPC bashing game.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 01 September 2008 12:17 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know I just realized Vision Green aptly describes the Canadian Green Party with their endless envy, and wanting other parties to given them a break, that they have not yet earned.

The Green eyed monster, yep pretty apt, with their Vision Green.

And Northern Report I read the whole damn thing, a while back and most of the stuff they have in there is the repsonsibilty of the provinces, as it seems they do not understand what is provincial territory and what is federal. And then the ill fated do nothing for the enviroment carbon tax stuff.

It is a great example of "green washing" but doing nothing.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 September 2008 04:34 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to finally weigh in on this farce. I'm on vacation in Moscow of all places and have very limited internet access.

The so-called Green Party now has one so-called MP. What does this tell us? Well, here is this guy Blair Wilson, whose biggest claim to fame was being charged with electoral fraud and being a real estate developped who has apparentlyu been involved in a strong on unsavoury business deals. Doesn't anyone find it odd that the guy was supposedly cleared by Elections Canada and yet the Liberals STILL refused to let him rejoin their caucus? I mean when someone is considered to be too embarrassingly corrupt and sleazy for the Liberals (the party that wrote the book on being corrupt and sleazy in canadian politics) it really speaks volumes. Too corrupt for the Liberals, but the Greens welcome him with open arms no questions asked...hmmm...The guy is a classic rightwing pro-Paul Martin, pro-business Liberal, who represents the wealthiest riding in BC. The Liberals rejected him - who knows whether he tried to join the Tories as well as got rejected. But good old Elizabeth May is sooooo desperate to get an MP (or a reasonable facsimile therefof) that she takes him in - all on the misguided assumption that getting this ethically challenged non-entity who has never shown any previous interest in environmental issues - will get her into a leaders debate so she can some publicity.

I think its all pretty sleazy and pathetic and tells people even more about how unethical May is. I'm not sure that the Green party camn ever say that they actually have an MP. Parliament is not in session and the speaker has to recognize that an MP has switched parliamentary groups. All that has really happned is that an Independent who was kicked out of the Liberal caucus due to correuption - has essentially said three days before parliame nt is dissolved that he wants to run as a Green - big deal.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 September 2008 04:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chortle. The real right in the media seems intent on screwing over the fake left in the NDP.

Gotcha!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 September 2008 05:01 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Allow me to finally weigh in on this farce. I'm on vacation in Moscow of all places and have very limited internet access.

Can't fool me, Stock. I know you're in Moscow as an agent provocateur. Putin has been warned.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
londoninium
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14401

posted 01 September 2008 05:02 AM      Profile for londoninium     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, you're bending the truth and you know it. Blair Wilson wasn't kicked out of the Liberal caucus for corruption, it was for failing to disclose the affair *FOR WHICH HE WAS CLEARED WITHOUT RESERVATION* by Elections Canada a few months ago. Wilson's failure to disclose may have been politically tactless, but it says little about his character: he did nothing wrong and failing to disclose that was not illegal.

Secondly, whether or not Wilson gets sworn in as a Green MP by the speaker, he's made his statement clear. It's a procedural issue, not a political one. I've heard others argue that because of this Elizabeth May shouldn't get a seat at the leaders' debate (only party's with representation in parliament get to attend; if Wilson isn't sworn in he's not technically representing the Greens). This is complete garbage. Say after the next election the Liberals get 51 seats and the NDP 50. Then, during the recess after the first session of parliament, a Liberal defects to the NDP. Would the NDP wait until Parliament started again to start calling themselves the Official Opposition? I think not.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
londoninium
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14401

posted 01 September 2008 05:02 AM      Profile for londoninium     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sorry, double posted by accident

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: londoninium ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 September 2008 05:08 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There have been several articles that have gone into all of Blair Wilson's unethical business deals and corruption at length. Its nice that Elections Canada cleared him - but when a party with a history of tolerance of extreme corruption like the Liberals decides that this guy is too sleazy for them - it speaks volumes. Wilson is too corrupt to be allowed back into the Liberal caucus - but he is considered acceptable by the Greens - that says something to me and I hope that the NDP has a lo0t of fun telling people about how 100% of the Green "caucus" is made up of corrupt rightwing real estate developpers with no background of any kind in the environmental movement.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 05:40 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:

What is the Green position on national defence?

Here's a clue...

Coming - Red Fridays - Support our Troops

Looks like the very first Green MP has no problems with Canada going to war in far away countries.

Nice.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 September 2008 06:07 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How childish. And now let's see the hypocrisy flow ...

If hosting a "Red Friday" is supporting the war in Afghanistan, then certainly organizing a coffee drive for Tim Hortons is also, no? Or is that different ... ?

http://irenemathyssen.ndp.ca/page/80

I suppose it is different. Oh, wait ... I almost forgot the angry face.

So why don't we discuss Green Party policies, NorthReport? Explain for us all the GP party's policy on municipal infrastructure funding? Maybe even Stockholm, on vacation no less (what a lot of fun he must be), can chime in yet again to help you out. Because surely if you are so critical, you must have read and understood the party's policies. And surely, you are also intimately familiar with the NDP's platform. Yes?

Or have you actually read either?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 06:16 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
How childish. And now let's see the hypocrisy flow ...

If hosting a "Red Friday" is supporting the war in Afghanistan, then certainly organizing a coffee drive for Tim Hortons is also, no? Or is that different ... ?

http://irenemathyssen.ndp.ca/page/80

I suppose it is different. Oh, wait ... I almost forgot the angry face.


I am a member of the NDP and I do not support Canadian troops in Afghanistan.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 September 2008 06:34 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So? The fact is an NDP MP is encouraging voters to economically benefit Tim Hortons while "supporting our troops" in Afghanistan. You seem to think the if one MP participates in an effort to show support for our troops, that is reason for not supporting Greens. So why isn't an NDP MP's duplicate effort not a reason for not supporting the NDP?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 01 September 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I can't believe the CAF have to pay for their own coffee. Why isn't Tim Horton's offering it for free?

ETA:

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 06:39 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would hope most New Democrats don't support Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

As it stands, 100% of Green MPs support our troops in Afghanistan.

How green is that?


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
NorthReport
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15337

posted 01 September 2008 06:39 AM      Profile for NorthReport     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So the Greens support Canada having troops in Afghanistan and killing the Afghanistan people. Nice. And very good for our fragile environment too.
From: From sea to sea to sea | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 September 2008 06:44 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
If hosting a "Red Friday" is supporting the war in Afghanistan, then certainly organizing a coffee drive for Tim Hortons is also, no? Or is that different ... ?

http://irenemathyssen.ndp.ca/page/80


No, it's not different at all. Irene Mathyssen is just as big a warmonger as Wilson.

Do you think her position makes Wilson any more acceptable as a Green Party member?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 September 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As it stands, 100% of Green MPs support our troops in Afghanistan.

Are you saying that the NDP do not "support our troops" in Afghanistan? Really? Do the many working class families with sons and daughters in harm's way no this?

quote:
So the Greens support Canada having troops in Afghanistan and killing the Afghanistan people. Nice. And very good for our fragile environment too.

So in fact you haven't read any Green policies. You haven't a clue about what it is you oppose. You just oppose it out of ignorance. How does that make you any different than, say, George W. Bush?

quote:
Do you think her position makes Wilson any more acceptable as a Green Party member?

I think you know better M. My point is to display the hypocrisy and ignorance of blind party loyalty. Most party supporters, of any party, haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the platform of their own party never mind any other. They base their defenses and attacks on pure ignorance.

NorthReport, for example, says he wants to discuss Green Party policy -- something he is wholly unfamiliar with. He is not looking for an intelligent debate but attacks based on stereotypes and ignorance. And for what purpose? To reinforce that very same ignorance.

For example, in another thread, BA said the Greens support free market solutions to the environment -- the implication being the NDP does not. But what is cap'n'trade if not a market (non-)solution? And in a free market economy!

I've even found and posted, previously, Jack Layton singing the praises of the market.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 September 2008 07:25 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I think you know better M. My point is to display the hypocrisy and ignorance of blind party loyalty.
To what are we to chalk up your own desire to make excuses for your own party's only MP other than "blind party loyalty"?

Is there any other MP - indeed any other Canadian politician - to whom you would give a pass on their support for the "mission" in Afghanistan? I didn't think so.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 07:59 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:
So the Greens support Canada having troops in Afghanistan and killing the Afghanistan people. Nice. And very good for our fragile environment too.

Still not a single discussion of an actual Green Party position, especially by the person who started the thread pretending to be interested. Who could have called that?


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 08:22 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
For example, in another thread, BA said the Greens support free market solutions to the environment -- the implication being the NDP does not. But what is cap'n'trade if not a market (non-)solution? And in a free market economy!

No wonder you like the Greens so much, you are a big liar and misrepresenter yourself.

I said that the Greens support

quote:
Supporting right wing market theory

and

quote:
I have sat in all candidates debates listening to a succession of Green candidates explain how the market will fix environmental problems and be very negative about regulation, as if the market didn't play a role in creating them in the first place.

I did not say the market had no role, or that the market was bad. What I clearly said was that the Green dependence on the market fixing environmental problems is right wing economic theory. I also pointed out that the Green candidates I have seen front and centre were very negative about regulation, the antithesis of a sensible and long lasting approach to environmental problems. And news flash, carbon related issues are not the only environmental issues we are facing in Canada.
I am not currently involved in the NDP so I can take a long look at what approaches might work. Cap and trade can only exist in a regulatory framework that penalizes poor environmental performance. It is this balanced approach that will work.

For the record left-wing economic theory recognizes that market mechanisims do not work perfectly, and in some areas work poorly. That is why real progressives understand that the tax shift regime supported by the Greens and Liberals will never work. Those that are currently disadvantaged by our capitalist system will be further disadvantaged and those with more resources will benefit more substantially. You can create all the little do-dads you want in order to make yourself feel better about the damage you are doing in the lives of the poor, rural and northern people and small businesses, but the entire system will still fall heaviest and hardest on them.
The left-wing approach is a mix of the market and the influence of government to balance the failings of the market. To my mind it is the only way to create true prosperity and long lasting environmental change, so the next time you are going to make shit up pick on someone else.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More horseshit misrepresentation from the Greens.

From the link about Irene Mathyssen

quote:
I have sat in all candidates debates listening to a succession of Green candidates explain how the market will fix environmental problems and be very negative about regulation, as if the market didn't play a role in creating them in the first place.


No talk about supporting the war effort only about supporting the men and women who have been put in harms way. There is a huge world of difference between the two. We have military people sent to potentially die by our country. Until we can get them pulled out of that role, or have no army- all of us, whether we support the jobs given Canadian troops or not, are equally responsible for their saftey and well being. Confusing the grunt soldier with those who make the decisions is a childish and intellectually immature reaction to a very sensible and nice thing for Ms Mathyssen to be doing quite frankly.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 08:35 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
I would hope most New Democrats don't support Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

As it stands, 100% of Green MPs support our troops in Afghanistan.

How green is that?


I hope all New Democrats support Canadian troops in Afghanistan. What I hope they don't support is having Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Language is important and the nuance between the two is equally important.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

I hope all New Democrats support Canadian troops in Afghanistan. What I hope they don't support is having Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Language is important and the nuance between the two is equally important.


I only support Canadian troops in a peace keeping role. I do not support Canadian troops in Afghanistan because I don't support war.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 01 September 2008 08:43 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OSCI

Did you support the 2003-05 mission?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 01 September 2008 08:46 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Being litle-informed, I wade in with some forebonding in this flamefest about the Green Party, only to ask whether the policies of the Green Party of Canada have been compared by anyone to those of the Green Party in other countries - e.g. Germany of France, where it seems to have had a major influence, if not the balance of power. Such a global perpective could help rein right-wing drifts and give Canada the benefit of an international experience.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 08:52 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:


Until we can get them pulled out of that role, or have no army- all of us, whether we support the jobs given Canadian troops or not, are equally responsible for their saftey and well being.
[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

We'll have equal responsibility when we have equal power.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 01 September 2008 08:53 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
OSCI

Did you support the 2003-05 mission?


Webgear, why would you start at 2003?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 08:56 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Their Green Vision was released almost a year ago. It runs 157 pages and covers everything you ask about.

The Green Vision was discussed here on babble.


The Green Vision itself can be found here.


I just spent a bunch of time going through the Vision Green document. It is very big on rhetoric and very big on vague generalities but very small on proposing actual, practical things to address issues. Many of the solutions are to study the problem or to get together with the provinces and talk about things.

I searched the document for policy planks dealing with poverty. Poverty is an issue that is causing as much damage to Canadian society as many other issues. It is something that requires concrete action right now. The only practical thing I found that the Greens could impliment, or any federal party for that matter, is to provide free public transit passes for those living below the poverty line. I will let all my rural neighbours know that the Greens have their back on all their transit options.

Anything else dealing with poverty is provincial in jurisdiction or competely void of specific actions.
Runnning for government is a big picture sort of thing. You have to have an idea of what you would do on everything from apple imports to zooilogical research funding.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 September 2008 08:57 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do the Greens have to say about the Canadian Wheat Board?

I think there must be a few different shades of Green across the country. I recall a few years ago in Saskatchewan when the local activist community had a discussion over whether we should stick together and support the Nude Ems or give the Greens our support.

At the time, the Greens were seen as left of the NDP, and were an attractive alternative. My radical lesbian buddy (also a radical cheerleader - she was at all the marches back in 2003) was nominated to run for the Greens at one point, but backed out because she had other commitments, so didn't run.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 09:03 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

We'll have equal responsibility when we have equal power.


They have been sent to die in our names in a war that is dumb ass stupid. One small reason for a part of the reason for opposing such action is the waste of such sacrifice. We are all responsibly for their deployment, otherwise opposing it would be pointless.
Of course the major reason is the damage being done in Afghanistan, including the killing of innocents. But those soldiers are there in our name, each and every one of us. It is as imperative we oppose their mission as it is to not forget these are just men and women too, with families, and loved ones and hopes and dreams not all that much different than our own.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 09:05 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
OSCI

Did you support the 2003-05 mission?


I though my response to Bookish Agrarian was very clear.

Let me try again.

I would only support Canadian troops on combat missions if they were conscripted. And I would likely fight the government that put them in that position.

Other than that, I only support them in a peacekeeping role.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 09:12 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

They have been sent to die in our names in a war that is dumb ass stupid. One small reason for a part of the reason for opposing such action is the waste of such sacrifice. We are all responsibly for their deployment, otherwise opposing it would be pointless.
Of course the major reason is the damage being done in Afghanistan, including the killing of innocents. But those soldiers are there in our name, each and every one of us. It is as imperative we oppose their mission as it is to not forget these are just men and women too, with families, and loved ones and hopes and dreams not all that much different than our own.


1. I am in no way, shape, or form responsible for their deployment. I am, however, responsible for opposing it.

2. They're not there in my name. But I certainly do not wish them ill. Nor do I wish the Afghans ill.

3. Nor are they, i.e., "the troops", entirely without responsibility.

4. I have found that most people's hopes and dreams are rather different from my own. But that's another matter.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 09:17 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:

I though my response to Bookish Agrarian was very clear.

Let me try again.

I would only support Canadian troops on combat missions if they were conscripted. And I would likely fight the government that put them in that position.

Other than that, I only support them in a peacekeeping role.



Well there is conscription and then there is consription. The reality is that many of the troops serving in Afghanistan are taking the gamble that they will survive in order to benefit from the training and educational opportunities that would be out of reach for them otherwise. It is no accident that most of Canada's soldiers come from a working class background, or grew up in impoverished circumstances. So we might not send a letter in the mail, but the reality is we offer so few other options for many young people that some see the gamble of serving and not dying as one of the one ways 'up' available to them.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 09:25 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:


the reality is we offer so few other options for many young people


If you want to take responsibility for "our" economic system, I won't argue with you. What do I know - maybe you're Thomas d'Aquino! But most of us don't have that kind of wealth or power.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 09:33 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

I am in no way, shape, or form responsible for their deployment. I am, however, responsible for opposing it.

They're not there in my name. But I certainly do not wish them ill. Nor do I wish the Afghans ill.

Nor are they, i.e., "the troops", entirely without responsibility.

(I have found that most people's hopes and dreams are rather different from my own. But that's another matter.)

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


Sorry but as a Canadian citizen they arethere in your name. It is the flip side of opposing their deployment. It might just be pedantic semantics but that is the reality of the nation state. It is also why Canadian soldiers should be held to high standards of conduct, something that is not practiced by the Red Fridays crowd.

When Canadian troops do bad things we expect them to be responsible to us as Canadians. When we send them in harms way anywhere we are responsible for them in a similar fashion.

But I think we are just talking past each other, and it may be a function of my age and understanding of this quote.

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and this one

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
Martin Luther King, Jr.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:


When Canadian troops do bad things we expect them to be responsible to us as Canadians. When we send them in harms way anywhere we are responsible for them in a similar fashion.

But I think we are just talking past each other, and it may be a function of my age and understanding of this quote.


But I didn't send them! The people who rule Canada sent them!

But, yes, we do seem to be talking past each other

ETA: I don't quite understand the significance of the MLK quotes. (We must be talking past each other!) But if you're suggesting some people "hate the troops", I don't know... I have considerable sympathy for them. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 09:45 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by londoninium:
Stockholm, you're bending the truth and you know it. Blair Wilson wasn't kicked out of the Liberal caucus for corruption, it was for failing to disclose the affair *FOR WHICH HE WAS CLEARED WITHOUT RESERVATION* by Elections Canada a few months ago. Wilson's failure to disclose may have been politically tactless, but it says little about his character: he did nothing wrong and failing to disclose that was not illegal.

Secondly, whether or not Wilson gets sworn in as a Green MP by the speaker, he's made his statement clear. It's a procedural issue, not a political one. I've heard others argue that because of this Elizabeth May shouldn't get a seat at the leaders' debate (only party's with representation in parliament get to attend; if Wilson isn't sworn in he's not technically representing the Greens). This is complete garbage. Say after the next election the Liberals get 51 seats and the NDP 50. Then, during the recess after the first session of parliament, a Liberal defects to the NDP. Would the NDP wait until Parliament started again to start calling themselves the Official Opposition? I think not.


Good points londoninium. BTW, Stockholm ALWAYS bends the truth.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 09:45 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

I searched the document for policy planks dealing with poverty. Poverty is an issue that is causing as much damage to Canadian society as many other issues. It is something that requires concrete action right now. The only practical thing I found that the Greens could impliment, or any federal party for that matter, is to provide free public transit passes for those living below the poverty line. I will let all my rural neighbours know that the Greens have their back on all their transit options.

Anything else dealing with poverty is provincial in jurisdiction or competely void of specific actions.


A perfect example of why a discussion about the Green Party and their policies can never occur on this forum.

Here are the policies/planks/positions of the NDP relating to poverty as taken from their website. Notice how aweseome and thorough they are compared to the Green Vision

quote:
Now Layton’s NDP is building on that progress, building toward the comprehensive anti-poverty strategy that Canada needs:
• Consulting with Canadians: Touring twenty towns and cities since June 2006, NDP Social Policy Critic Tony Martin is talking with ordinary citizens about their experiences of poverty and how to repair Canada’s social safety net.
• Fixing Employment Insurance: The NDP has tabled eight bills to reform EI so hard-working Canadians can again qualify for fair benefits while they seek new employment or retraining.
• Restoring a federal minimum wage:The NDP has tabled legislation to reinstate the federal minimum wage the Liberals axed, setting it at $10/hour to ensure a basic living standard.
• Moving forward on child care: After years of setbacks, the NDP has moved past second reading with landmark legislation to make affordable child care a permanent national program.
• Protecting seniors: Parliament has adopted the NDP's Seniors Charter enshrining every senior’s right to secure income, housing and health care—including free drug and dental coverage.
• Confronting homelessness: While advocating a national housing strategy, NDP MPs also pressured the government to abandon cuts to homelessness and community housing initiatives.
• Restart a 10-year national housing program to build 200,000 affordable and co-op housing units (including homes for aboriginal people, seniors, people with disabilities and students), renovate 100,000 existing units, and provide rent supplements to 40,000 low-income tenants, many of whom are single mothers who pay a large percentage of their income in rent.
• Underwrite low-interest mortgages for affordable housing – using the large profits generated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation – and renew and refocus CMHC’s responsibility for social housing funding, specifically making it easier for community-based housing organizations to get funding.
• Making education affordable: The NDP has a practical plan to ease crippling student debt, and has already secured a Parliamentary study on improving access to literacy and skills training.
• Bring tuition down through a Post-Secondary Education Act that commits to reliable federal funding in return for provincial commitments to bring down costs for students.
• Restore needs-based grants for low-income college and university students so quality education isn’t just a privilege for wealthy families.
• Reform Canada Student Loans to ease the burden of student debt that limits opportunities for young people for years after graduation.
• Launch a national training strategy to expand vocational training opportunities for Canadians while preparing this country to tackle looming skills shortages.
• Reform Employment Insurance so more workers can once again qualify for training benefits.
• Fighting for women’s equality: The face of poverty is disproportionately female, and New Democrats are helping to lead the struggle for equality for women at home and at work.
• Seeking fairness for people with disabilities: The NDP is refining a Canadians with Disabilities Act targeting the income and employment gaps that Canadians with disabilities still face.
• Seeking justice for Aboriginal people: The NDP is working for solutions that honour Canada’s obligations to First Nations, Métis and Inuit people—while improving the appalling living conditions too many still face. » more
Jack Layton and the NDP have pledged to work with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples on priority areas including:
• Ensuring communities have infrastructure, housing, water and other services equal to those enjoyed by other Canadians.
• Supporting Aboriginal initiatives to improve health through better health care, wellness strategies, and community infrastructure.
• Ensuring speedy compensation for survivors of residential schools abuse.
• Ensuring respect for the inherent right to self-governance and ensuring responsible resolution of land claims.
• Developing community economies with people as the priority — through adequate infrastructure and access to capital for local economic development.
• Creating approaches to justice that heal, including youth-focussed crime prevention and systems of restorative justice that also support victims of crime.
• Emphasizing education and training, especially through programs encouraging employment in health, education, social services, sciences, commerce, engineering and trades.
• Feeding children: Alongside several community groups, the NDP co-launched the Children’s Health & Nutrition Initiative so no kids have to go to school hungry.
• Reducing bank fees: The NDP is tabling legislation to end the ATM-machine money-grab that made Canadians cough up $420-million in 2005 just to access their own money.

Now here are the shitty and non-existant policies/planks/positions taken from the Green Vision:

quote:
The Green Party of Canada believes it is time to re-visit a major policy initiative -- the use of a negative income tax, or Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) for all. The use of a GLI could eliminate poverty and allow social services to concentrate on problems of mental health and addiction. The essential plan is to provide a regular annual payment to every Canadian without regard to a needs- test. The level of the payment will be regionally set at a level above poverty.
• Remove taxes from lowest categories so that no taxes are paid by those below the poverty line (Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off measure).
• Allow income assistance recipients to keep 100% of the wages they earn up to the Low Income Cut-Off level to encourage people to get back into the job market.
• Offer people the mobility they need to find work, shelter and other necessities through free transit passes for those on income assistance.
• Extend maternity/paternity leave for new parents outside of EI to two years and one additional year for other parents who pay into EI.
• Increase Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors by 25%.
• Top up the income support for single parents on welfare during the time they are attending school or in job training programmes.
• Launch as a first step towards universal GLI provide additional income support of $5000/year to adults currently receiving provincial welfare cheques. Through negotiations with each province this modest income support payment will not be subject to claw back.
• Ensure financial assistance for low-income spouses and relatives who provide end-of-life care at home for patients who would otherwise need to be hospitalized or in institutional long term care.
• Augment the government’s measurement of “progress” (our Gross Domestic Product-GDP) with a Genuine Progress Indicator - a Canadian index of well-being (that annually measures how well we are doing on quality of life indicators, including eliminating poverty. (See economy section.)
• Develop comprehensive plan to improve our social safety network so that it eliminates child poverty, modeling this plan on European countries’ programmes that have the best track records in eliminating child poverty.
• Eradicate the most severe poverty of families through measures described in section 10, above.
• Create a National Affordable Housing Program that provides sufficient funds annually through the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to community-based agencies across Canada to:
a. Build new subsidized affordable homes: 20,000 new and 10,000 rehabilitated affordable units per year for the next ten years using capital grants and changes in tax and mortgage insurance regulations;
b. Provide rent supplements or shelter assistance for an additional 40,000 low-income households per year, for ten years;
c. Provide credit and loan guarantees to non-profit housing organizations and cooperatives for the building and restoration of quality, energy-efficient housing for seniors, people with special needs, and low-income families;
d. Subsidize private developers to include a percentage of affordable housing in their housing projects;
e. Extend provisions in the Income Tax Act to offer tax incentives to build affordable, healthy, energy-efficient, multi-unit rental housing and to include tax credits for gifts of lands, or of land and buildings, to community land trusts to provide affordable housing; and,
f. Dedicate funding to the co-operative housing sector to enable more new affordable housing projects to proceed.
• Re-establish a federal minimum wage of $10 an hour under the Canada Labour Code.
• Advocate for changes in the Canadian Labour Code that establish a minimum of three weeks paid vacation and a managed reduction in the standard work week to 35 hours.
• Restore and revamp the 2005 agreement reached between the federal government, provinces and territories to achieve a universal child care programme in Canada.
• Specifically ensure that Canada’s universal child care programme provides workplace child care spaces wherever possible.
• Increase funding for a needs-based Canadian National Student Loan and Bursary Program with low interest rates and reasonable repayment schedules. This loan program will replace the Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
• Forgive 50% of a student’s loan when they complete a degree or certificate program
• Increase ear-marked federal transfer payments to provinces for post-secondary education to enable post-secondary institutions, academic and trades, to increase spaces for student enrollment in exchange for tuition fee reductions.
• Support the restoration of the $5.1 billion commitment of the landmark Kelowna Accord reached between federal and provincial, territorial and First Nations governments in Canada in 2005, with the proviso that the ensuing programs do not lead to greater infringement on aboriginal and treaty rights.
• Honour Canada's fiduciary responsibility and the aboriginal rights, treaty rights and other rights of aboriginal peoples, including their inherent rights of self-government.
• Review the existing federal policy on self-government, in consultation with aboriginal representatives, to ensure that it is achieving the goals of aboriginal peoples.
• Ensure that negotiations of treaties and self-government is not based on extinguishment of aboriginal title and rights and assimilation, but on reconciliation of rights and title, and that negotiations recognize the diversity of traditional self-governance.
• Fully implement the recommendations of the 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, thereby embarking on true nation-to-nation negotiations on a full range of outstanding legal issues and land claims.

If there is something that NDP talked about that the Green Party didn't in the Green Vision chances are I just missed it - except ATM fees - the Green Party didn't mention them at all.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 09:53 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Their Green Vision was released almost a year ago. It runs 157 pages and covers everything you ask about.

The Green Vision was discussed here on babble.

The Green Vision itself can be found here.


The VG doc was recently updated. Here's the link again: Vision Green

As for the discussion about what I like about it, I agree with just about everything in the introduction paragraphs and the policy points on just about every subject area.

When it comes to rabble and the GPC, there is an aversion to making concrete criticisms about specific policy points, and when debated, one often encounters closed minded attitudes. I've witnessed an inability for some members to change their minds, even when encountering facts that should correct their misinformed opinion. My point is that it's difficult to have productive discussion about the GPC here due to not only the hostile trolls, but also the partisan members who've succumbed to confirmation bias.

I'm reminded of a short poem:
We dance 'round and 'round and suppose
While the answer sits in the middle and knows.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 09:53 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RosaL I see them as a call to reach out to others and to accept our responsibility to our brothers and sisters. As a Canadian I see it as my responsibilty to do what I can to 'fix' things I see as being wrong in my country. By accepting responsibility of those wrong things, it is then my duty to fight for change. But also to never forget the simple humanity of those I oppose.

So to get back to the original thing - If that means helping someone of good faith and intentions like Irene Mathyssen make those poor soldiers feel a little better for a moment then so be it. Her actions are a far and long way from voting to put them in harms way, as was suggested by that poster, and to me shows a depth of understanding of her responsibility to others that I wish more MPs understood. That she does and can oppose war, but also understand the humanity of those put in harms way is a huge testament to her character, not a reason to attack her.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 09:59 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
RosaL I see them as a call to reach out to others and to accept our responsibility to our brothers and sisters. As a Canadian I see it as my responsibilty to do what I can to 'fix' things I see as being wrong in my country. By accepting responsibility of those wrong things, it is then my duty to fight for change. But also to never forget the simple humanity of those I oppose.

You seem to be saying that, if I am responsible for "fixing" it, I must be responsible for what needs fixing. I don't agree with that. (The story of the Good Samaritan does not suggest that the Samaritan is in any way responsible for the plight of the guy in the ditch!)

I do agree that we are all responsible for each other and for trying to "fix" things. But I think our efforts to "fix" things will be undermined if we aren't clear about who's in control right now. It ain't us!

Anyway, I appreciate your respectful and patient tone. It's all too rare

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:02 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

If there is something that NDP talked about that the Green Party didn't in the Green Vision chances are I just missed it - except ATM fees - the Green Party didn't mention them at all.


As I pointed out, many of the things the Greens are suggesting are within the realm of provincial responsibilty. Then much of the stuff is air-fairy rhetoric.

quote:
Augment the government’s measurement of “progress” (our Gross Domestic Product-GDP) with a Genuine Progress Indicator - a Canadian index of well-being (that annually measures how well we are doing on quality of life indicators, including eliminating poverty.

Nice to keep a report card, but there is a hell of a lot of practical things that have to be done first.

It is funny NDP policy is dissected here regularly and many jump on it, including self-identified New Dems - but critique the poor Greens in a thread about Green policy and the Greens can't handle it. So they have to discuss themselves as opposed to others, not the short-comings of their own vision. Rather telling.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 01 September 2008 10:08 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
North Report -
quote:
So the Greens support Canada having troops in Afghanistan and killing the Afghanistan people. Nice. And very good for our fragile environment too.

This is why you can't get the 'discussion' you claim to want. I have talked about policy in the Afghanistan threads, NATO threads, and others. I even answered you're ridiculous 'where is the critical mass riding that exists today this minute no other discussion variations please bullshit question' You know the one you felt the need to repeat over and over. Now you start this thread with the parameters that everyone can link but Greens can't or the no links please I'm not going to read them excuse. You want a discussion without references so you can dismiss at will. So Trevor Kidd was right to see through it.

BA -

quote:
I searched the document for policy planks dealing with poverty. Poverty is an issue that is causing as much damage to Canadian society as many other issues. It is something that requires concrete action right now. The only practical thing I found that the Greens could impliment, or any federal party for that matter, is to provide free public transit passes for those living below the poverty line. I will let all my rural neighbours know that the Greens have their back on all their transit options.

BA with respect you simply searched and ignored until you could find something ridiculous and claim it was the only thing in there. Your other critical comments in other threads are better than that at times so I fail to see why you even posted this.

martin dufresne -

quote:
Being litle-informed, I wade in with some forebonding in this flamefest about the Green Party, only to ask whether the policies of the Green Party of Canada have been compared by anyone to those of the Green Party in other countries - e.g. Germany of France, where it seems to have had a major influence, if not the balance of power. Such a global perpective could help rein right-wing drifts and give Canada the benefit of an international experience.

All Green parties sign onto the International Green Charter which establishes a core philosophy from which to base national policy. Each Green party then determines how the direction of their respective country is affected. The Israeli Greens face a far different political landscape than Canada as do the German Greens. There are fundamental differences between the US Greens and the Israeli GP, specifically over the Palestinian issue. The African Green parties struggle with a political landscape we can only imagine but hopefully never experience and struggle to simply survive and establish themselves. The Ukrainian Greens have immediate priorities that take their focus. Chernobyl is a prime example as is the issue of nuclear weapons and the tensions between Russia and NATO. The South American Green parties also have a different political landscape to deal with based on a history of dictatorships, American interference etc.

So I'm not sure the comparison you are looking for can be made accurately enough to form a true picture.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:08 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mimeguy, I was clear about provincial jurisdictions. Those things that are federal areas are by and large not very specific.

IF some of that was a provincial platform it might be worthy of discussion, but as a federal document it shows a lack of understanding of how our system actually works. And is worse than proposing nothing as it is misleading to voters.

In fact in some of those provincial areas the ideas are good if not exactly new or groundbreaking and I would have no hesitation supporting them as some of them I have done so in the past.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:

You seem to be saying that, if I am responsible for "fixing" it, I must be responsible for what needs fixing. I don't agree with that.

I do agree that we are all responsible for each other and for trying to "fix" things. But I think our efforts to "fix" things will be undermined if we aren't clear about who's in control right now. It ain't us!

Anyway, I appreciate your respectful and patient tone. It's all too rare


Responsible and the cause of are two different things IMO.

I am responsible for my neighbours child if I see her falling into a hole, I did not cause the hole to be there. Bad example I guess but is the best I can do with my kids blaring Queen at the top volume of our stereo. How they figured out how to get the damn thing to 11 I don't know. And if I had guessed 25 years ago that my teenager and 8 and 10 year old would be listening to Queen too I would have despaired.

Now I am going to sing along to the songs at the top of my voice which should effectively drive them bonkers.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 01 September 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Cameron. You linked to the 2007 document. The 2008 updates are temporarily not available that I can see. Afghanistan, Darfur are much more detailed. I've written to colleagues asking when they will be available but I have a copy of the updates.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 01 September 2008 10:13 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Being litle-informed, I wade in with some forebonding in this flamefest about the Green Party, only to ask whether the policies of the Green Party of Canada have been compared by anyone to those of the Green Party in other countries - e.g. Germany of France, where it seems to have had a major influence, if not the balance of power. Such a global perpective could help rein right-wing drifts and give Canada the benefit of an international experience.
The Green Party of Canada did not used to be affliated with the world Green Parties, I do not know now if they are or not. That abscence of affliation was one of the reasons I did not switch to the GP when I was disgruntled with the NDP.

As when I was first interested in the Green movement, I read some articles concerning ties of the Canadian Green Party to The CJC, and the Seagram's Bronfman family, and about those ties not being in line with other Green Party beliefs and actions around the world. Will have to google sometime to see if there is anything about such things on line, today.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 10:14 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

Responsible and the cause of are two different things IMO.

I am responsible for my neighbours child if I see her falling into a hole, I did not cause the hole to be there.


I am responsible for getting the troops out of Afghanistan but I didn't cause (and am not causing) them to be there.

The Good Samaritan was responsible for helping the guy in the ditch. And I would argue that he wasn't responsible for the fact that the man was in the ditch.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 01 September 2008 10:16 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:


Well there is conscription and then there is consription. The reality is that many of the troops serving in Afghanistan are taking the gamble that they will survive in order to benefit from the training and educational opportunities that would be out of reach for them otherwise. It is no accident that most of Canada's soldiers come from a working class background, or grew up in impoverished circumstances. So we might not send a letter in the mail, but the reality is we offer so few other options for many young people that some see the gamble of serving and not dying as one of the one ways 'up' available to them.


I understand that. It is a job for them. But not all jobs are equal. Not all jobs have to be protected because it's someone's "job."

Some poor kids, for lack of options, find jobs making weapons that kill people. Do you support those kids too?


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 10:16 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
I would hope most New Democrats don't support Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

As it stands, 100% of Green MPs support our troops in Afghanistan.

How green is that?


Nice try, but reasonable people will know to look to the Green party for policy positions on Afghanistan. Here are a few links:

Vision Green: Rebalance our role in Afghanistan

06-18-2006 The Green Party of Canada is opposed to extension of the Canadian military deployment to southern Afghanistan beyond the scheduled February 2007 end date

The Green Party believes (quite rightly) that the nature of our military presence in Afghanistan must change.

Here's one to bring up a question: why did the NDP work to defeat the out of Afghanistan effort?

...the NDP have been happy to work with the Conservatives any time it can forward their common goal of weakening the Liberals - starting with their non-confidence that brought down Harper in 2005, moving through their bizarre cooperation to defeat the Liberals' out-of-Afghanistan-by-2009 motion and on to current NDP motions designed to humiliate the Liberals instead of focusing on the real enemy...

Maxed-out Afghanistan mission undermines military flexibility, say Greens

Afghanistan confidence motion plays politics with lives of Canadian soldiers


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:18 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RosaL -Yah right, I know you are really Paul Martin. I guess I just see my responsibility extending farther than just getting them out, but to also to the time they are still there until the forces of good win.
Anyway, I am off to shout "Under Pressure" so have a wonderful and joyous day.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 10:24 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

As I pointed out, many of the things the Greens are suggesting are within the realm of provincial responsibilty. Then much of the stuff is air-fairy rhetoric.


Seeing as most of the things that the GPC are suggesting are similar to the things that the NDP are suggesting, it would be nice if you provided a list of those things within the realm of provincial responsibility.

And of course anything that the NDP does not promote must be air-fairy rhetoric.

Despite your claims you mentioned a single thing:

quote:
Augment the government’s measurement of “progress” (our Gross Domestic Product-GDP) with a Genuine Progress Indicator - a Canadian index of well-being (that annually measures how well we are doing on quality of life indicators, including eliminating poverty.

Is that now off the left's agenda?

quote:
Nice to keep a report card, but there is a hell of a lot of practical things that have to be done first.

I see. Well let me know when the NDP provides an order for what things they will do when in power.

quote:
It is funny NDP policy is dissected here regularly and many jump on it, including self-identified New Dems - but critique the poor Greens in a thread about Green policy and the Greens can't handle it.

Bullshit. There has been no critiquing of GPC policies because no one, before I just did, had mentioned one. You didn't critique GPC policy, you lied about what GPC policy included. That is what is rather telling.

I am reminded of something James Brooks said in the last thread discussing Vision Green:

quote:
I always find it funny, when talking to the hard core NDP and conservative voters, they have a lot of assumptions about the Greens, not a whole lot of actual knowledge... and here, your given the chance to see what we are all about (90% of these have been green party policies for years now stop acting like they are new, there just more detailed and put together in a better way) and yet half of you say "I dont need to read it" "id rather read a comic book"

Nothing has changed, nor will it.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:25 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:

I understand that. It is a job for them. But not all jobs are equal. Not all jobs have to be protected because it's someone's "job."

Some poor kids, for lack of options, find jobs making weapons that kill people. Do you support those kids too?


To support them while to try and find other jobs, to d what I can to support the creation of those other jobs if they do not exist and to understand that with few other options it is not my place to look down on them until as good a paying job with the same kind of benefits is created absolutely.

To support both financially and in other ways survivors of those killed and those maimed by warfare or opposing things like Apartied or American imperalism in places like Nicaragua has been something I have personally been involved in since the early 1980s.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 10:28 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Being litle-informed, I wade in with some forebonding in this flamefest about the Green Party, only to ask whether the policies of the Green Party of Canada have been compared by anyone to those of the Green Party in other countries - e.g. Germany of France, where it seems to have had a major influence, if not the balance of power.

Good question.

I know that the GPC, as a member of the Global Greens, had a lot of representatives at the recent Global Greens Congress in Brazil.

Green Parties around the world share common values as expressed in the Charter of the Global Greens. The policies of the Green Party of Canada are based on six fundamental principles

[URL=http://www.globalgreens.org/globalcharter ]The Charter of the Global Greens also guides the GPC's policies.[/URL]

I'm not aware off the top of my head of any exhaustive direct comparisons to other Green Parties around the world, but you could probably find some if you googled it, or you could do one yourself.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637

posted 01 September 2008 10:29 AM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
The Green Party of Canada did not used to be affliated with the world Green Parties, I do not know now if they are or not.

They are now, and have been for many years AFAIK:
Global Green membership

quote:
That abscence of affliation was one of the reasons I did not switch to the GP when I was disgruntled with the NDP.

This this has now been addressed, when may we expect your membership application?

quote:
As when I was first interested in the Green movement, I read some articles concerning ties of the Canadian Green Party to The CJC, and the Seagram's Bronfman family, and about those ties not being in line with other Green Party beliefs and actions around the world. Will have to google sometime to see if there is anything about such things on line, today.

Maybe you should google them NOW, lest you be accused of spewing complete bullshit again?

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: scott ]


From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 10:30 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and this one

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
Martin Luther King, Jr.


Great quotes!


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:30 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Nothing has changed, nor will it.


You are right about your silly rhetoric

Number 1 and 3 of your list are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Number 2 is already in place, the only difference would be where you draw that line. And that's just a start.

I have no more time for those who do not understand their own policies and expect a free pass because they are so earnest. Real life is calling.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 01 September 2008 10:31 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
RosaL -Yah right, I know you are really Paul Martin. I guess I just see my responsibility extending farther than just getting them out, but to also to the time they are still there until the forces of good win.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


That's fine. It's statements like this I was objecting to:

quote:
When we send them in harms way...

From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 10:32 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
What do the Greens have to say about the Canadian Wheat Board?

Here is some info for you on that:

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/search/node/cwb


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 01 September 2008 10:36 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

I searched the document for policy planks dealing with poverty. Poverty is an issue that is causing as much damage to Canadian society as many other issues. It is something that requires concrete action right now.



The Green Party of Canada believes it is time to re-visit a major policy initiative -- the use of a negative income tax, or Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) for all. The use of a GLI could eliminate poverty and allow social services to concentrate on problems of mental health and addiction.

Making poverty history

Why don't you contact the GPC Shadow Cabinet rep?

Poverty Elimination
Michael Oddy - NS
902-857-2058
moddy@greenparty.ca


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 01 September 2008 10:39 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To my knowledge there was never a formal association between Green Parties internationally before 1990 and took a decade to develop into what we know and are signatories to now.

http://tinyurl.com/67jh67

quote:
In April 2001, 800 Greens from 72 countries came together in Canberra, Australia for the second-ever Global Greens Conference. One of the key objectives for Canberra was to capprove the first ever Global Greens Charter.

Green Party of Canada original mandate. http://tinyurl.com/67ptrx

quote:
We are the alternative to the traditional parties. We grew out of a coalition of alternative groups and parties. We feel solidarity with all those who have become active in the new democratic movement: the life and nature groups, the environmental protection groups, the citizen initiative organizations, the workers' movement, the Christian initiative organizations, the movements for peace, human rights, women's rights, and Third World rights. We consider ourselves a part of the Green movement rising up throughout the world.
The established political parties in Ottawa act as if an unlimited expansion in industrial production is possible on this very limited planet Earth. Thus, according to their own statements, they are forcing us to decide between nuclear war or a country dominated by nuclear power, between Hiroshima or Harrisburg. The worldwide ecological crisis worsens from day to day. Natural resources become ever more scarce, chemical waste dump are topics for scandal after scandal, whole species of animals are exterminated, entire plant varieties grow extinct, rivers and oceans change slowly into sewers, and humans verge on spiritual and intellectual decay in the midst of a mature, industrial, consumer society. We are piling up a dismal inheritance for future generations.

From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cameron - I will make a suggestion. It is good they support the CWB, but the mention in the Vision Green suggests they do not understand the issues fully enough. No mention of the single desk, no mention of farmer control or the highest returns possible to farmers. That in my mind is a serious oversight at the very least. And far less than what the NDP or Liberals are saying.
quote:
Supports the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure the fair trading of high quality
Canadian grains;

And don't get me started on this gem, that would destroy supply management - many of whom are family farmers.

quote:
Ensures that supply management systems provide stable domestic markets, viable
farm income and permit unregulated production by smaller and family farms that sell
to local markets;

You really need someone advising you on Ag policy that understands how things work in the first place. This stuff is kind of embarrassing for a national party. I would suggest finding out more about the NFU and its policies. The Liberals and NDP steal from us, so the Greens might as well too.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 10:46 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As usual a non-stop lie fest BA.

quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

Number 1 and 3 of your list are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Number 2 is already in place, the only difference would be where you draw that line. And that's just a start.


It says in there clearly that the GLI would start off by giving $5000 additional income on top of the provincial welfare rates while negotiations with the provinces were worked out. In no way does the federal government giving federal money to people in poverty violate provincial jurisdiction.

Statistics Canada puts the poverty line above $20,000. Where do you think that the line should be drawn BA? Apparently under $10000 as you don't think those under the poverty line pay taxes.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 10:53 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
It is good they support the CWB, but the mention in the Vision Green suggests they do not understand the issues fully enough. No mention of the single desk, no mention of farmer control or the highest returns possible to farmers. That in my mind is a serious oversight at the very least. And far less than what the NDP or Liberals are saying.

Perhaps you can point out where the CWB exists in the NDP's lists of issues. I have yet to see the NDP's platform, but I highly doubt that they will cover CWB in any depth.

In their previous platform it said this:

quote:
Standing behind the right of Canadian farmers to use single-desk marketing for western wheat, and over-quota tariffs to maintain the health of our domestic supply management sectors. These tools provide fair prices to consumers and producers alike.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 01 September 2008 11:08 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by londoninium (and later supported as "a good point" by Cameron W.:
Say after the next election the Liberals get 51 seats and the NDP 50. Then, during the recess after the first session of parliament, a Liberal defects to the NDP. Would the NDP wait until Parliament started again to start calling themselves the Official Opposition? I think not.

1) The NDP would insist that said Liberal MP run in a by-election if she or he wanted to join the NDP caucus. Then she or he would have to win the NDP nomination in their riding.

2) The NDP is already serving as the real opposition with only 30 MPs, so why would that change if the standings separated them from the Liberals by only one seat?

On a wider note, I have to wonder what Elizabeth May has against democratic elections or even democratic party nominations (sorry to you, duly nominated Green candidate in West Vancouver). She failed to get Garth Turner, so she settled for Blair Wilson. Pathetic.

Having been away for a week, I'll be interested to return to the doorstep in Guelph to see if Mike Nagy has struck all of the rhetoric about "electing the first Green MP so that Elizabeth May can be in the debates". I guess he'll have to think of a new one-note campaign.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

1) The NDP would insist that said Liberal MP run in a by-election if she or he wanted to join the NDP caucus. Then she or he would have to win the NDP nomination in their riding.


Good point. When Alex Cullen did the exact same thing in 1998 as Wilson has just done that was completely different.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 01 September 2008 11:46 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Good point. When Alex Cullen did the exact same thing in 1998 as Wilson has just done that was completely different.

That -- and the more embarrassing example of Robert Toupin -- is exactly why the policy was adopted within the NDP (nothing to do with Alex, but about democratic process). Incidentally, Alex Cullen remains to this day an active and proud New Democrat, and one of the most effective members of Ottawa City Council.

Why don't you Google Buckley Belanger if you want an example of how defections would be handled by the NDP today?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 01 September 2008 11:59 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scott P.
quote:
1) The NDP would insist that said Liberal MP run in a by-election if she or he wanted to join the NDP caucus. Then she or he would have to win the NDP nomination in their riding.

2) The NDP is already serving as the real opposition with only 30 MPs, so why would that change if the standings separated them from the Liberals by only one seat?


1) With respect Scott although this may be the stated procedure it is fair to challenge whether it would actually happen in the example given. I think Jack would gladly support running roughshod over that policy if gave him the ability to claim official opposition.

2) The NDP are not the real opposition and their efforts have been fruitless giving more reason why we need another independent party to help counter the liberals and conservatives. None of the three opposition parties have presented any real effort to counter the conservatives since January 2006. It's useless to point fingers as the opposition parties willingly surrendered any form of cooperation in order to fight each other instead. The climate change act was an example of what should have taken precedent but all three opposition parties decided to return to old politics. It's a power struggle and the NDP if in the same position as the liberals of not being ready for an election and facing losses of seats would have found reasons to abstain and support conservative legislation when strategically required.

If I remember correctly the liberals and NDP voted against the first budget in 2006 but the Bloc wasn't ready for an election so they supported the budget and got a litte slice in return. Then both NDP/Bloc smelled weakness in the liberals and reacted accordingly which is why both came out against the throne speech ahead of the liberals. It had nothing to do with principled politics it was about grandstanding and trapping the liberals. The liberal coalition is also based in part on jaded politics and they would have gone to an election sooner if they had been strong enough. Hardly effective opposition, hardly principled, and clearly nothing to do with the greater issues.

That is the biggest trap for the Greens once in Ottawa whether it is Blair Wilson, or the next MP elected. It's an easy swamp to sink in and it will be hard to resist but it must be resisted.

I have a question for all NDP and Greens. If the next election were to produce a conservative minority with an NDP official opposition and balance of power, do you really believe that they would bring down the government to go to an immediate election right after? All the issues are the same? What makes us think Harper will listen to Jack and cease manipulations as opposed to Dion?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 12:21 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Why don't you Google Buckley Belanger if you want an example of how defections would be handled by the NDP today?


Maybe that is how the NDP would handle it today. Both the Belanger and Cullen cases happened at about the same time. In the case of Belanger the NDP had a massive majority in parliament, in the case of Cullen they didn't have many seats.

Sorry, until the NDP actually shows a real example of this new anti-floor-crossing integrity, to me it a case of do as I say, not as I do.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 September 2008 12:48 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
To what are we to chalk up your own desire to make excuses for your own party's only MP other than "blind party loyalty"?

Is there any other MP - indeed any other Canadian politician - to whom you would give a pass on their support for the "mission" in Afghanistan? I didn't think so.



This is very unlike you, M. First, I have already criticized the decision of accepting Wilson into the party. In fact, I characterized it as poor judgment and "a marriage of convenience". So to suggest I am giving a pass to this MP is entirely disengenuous when I wouldn't have him in the party in the first place.

Second, is this a form of Green baiting?

If the Green Party is "my party" then the NDP must be "your party". I have stated quite consistently that if I vote Green (and that is not necessarily assured), it is to register a protest vote. I am not anymore committed to the Greens as I am opposed to the NDP. They are both part and parcel of the party system which represents an effective and efficient means of dividing and conquering popular interest rather than providing a vehicle for the expression of popular interest.

That is why I enjoy these threads. Those among us who routinely speak of collective action then devote our time and sometimes money to a system that is designed to prevent even collective collaboration.

I can become an enemy of sorts to a great many people simply by my voting preference. Those who say change won't occur solely due to the personal economic choices of the individual, will sometimes suggest change can be possible through the individual voting choices expressed within the same system that shapes and directs consumer choices.

Can a vote be characterized as a consumer choice if it was packaged and marketed in the same way?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 12:56 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Perhaps you can point out where the CWB exists in the NDP's lists of issues. I have yet to see the NDP's platform, but I highly doubt that they will cover CWB in any depth.
[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Trevor you are so twisted by hate, it is no longer worth responding to you.

However, since Cameron posted what he did in good faith I will respond to the general issue. Two parties have to a great extnet been great allies to farmers on the CWB issue, as I mentioned above (funny how Trevor did not attack the Liberals eh?) The Liberals and NDP have been stalwart allies. Large kudos to Alex Atamanenko and Wayne Easter in particular. The Bloc, particularly André Bellavance have been very supportive too. The Greens have been no where to be seen.

Things have changed significantly since the last election. NDP and Liberal policy has evolved being in the thick of things. The Greens obviously are not abreast of the changes and what is happening.

ETA - Cameron the offer is still open on where you, and by extension the Greens could find out more on agricultural policy. In fact anyone, regardless of party who wants to know about food policy can send me a PM (not a Harper) and I would be glad to help with some links.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

Trevor you are so twisted by hate, it is no longer worth responding to you.


So you can't point out where the NDP discusses the CWB in its lists of issues, or the election platform in which it discusses the CWB in any depth. Not surprising. Your hypocracy knows no bounds.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 01 September 2008 01:07 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you able to fucking read? I am sorry to everyone else because I don't speak that way normally but I just went through an explanation on what both the NDP, Liberals, Bloc and Greens have been doing. Then you ignore it with more hate laced crap. Your response shows you are clearly ignorant of the current status of the CWB and the ongoing issues that have been surrounding it. You see unlike you I have actually been involved. I know what is going on. I have pointed not just to one party, but several who have been helpful in the fight to save the CWB. Get it, not words, but actual real, on the ground actions by those parties. The Greens, in your world are all about talking, not doing.

You are a disgrace to the Greens and I bet responsible for a great number of lost votes if anyone is stupid enough to send you out canvassing.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 01 September 2008 01:08 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Good point. When Alex Cullen did the exact same thing in 1998 as Wilson has just done that was completely different.


LMAOROF

In a thread where the Greens are trying to explain that they know the difference between federal and provincial jurisdiction no matter what provincial "cures" their website has they get bonus points for comparing their new FEDERAL MP with a PROVINCIAL MPP.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 01 September 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
Maybe you should google them NOW, lest you be accused of spewing complete bullshit again?

Ohkayyyyyyyyyyyy, did, and my do you have egg on your face.

quote:
Background on the Censors: You have to remember while perusing these articles, every pro-censor activity mentioned in the articles below was backed, supported, even bankrolled by the Bronfmans through the spider web network they control, including political parties, candidates, beaurocrats, government officials, religious organizations, businesses, etc. Some of these ties are so strong that when you say the World Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Green Party, the Seagrams Company, and others you are really saying the Bronfman mafia, because they are all controlled by the same family...

Vive le Canada

And one need only google Bernie Farber, Richard Warman and the Green Party of Canada to find out all you need to know about their affiliations with one another.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
LemonThriller
babbler
Babbler # 11085

posted 01 September 2008 01:59 PM      Profile for LemonThriller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It, really, *really* bothers me when social democrats insist the Greens shouldn't have a voice in the debate, then go around complaining that there isn't a PR electoral system. In Sweden, a party that receives 4% of the vote receives representation in parliament. Even with more support in Canada, the Greens are silenced.

I dislike the Greens, but I still support their right to speak in the national debates.

If the NDP wonders why so many people are disaffected by the party, they have only themselves and their hyper-partisanship to look at.
- A disgruntled NDP-er.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: LemonThriller ]


From: Halifax, N.S. | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 01 September 2008 02:18 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LemonThriller:
It, really, *really* bothers me when social democrats insist the Greens shouldn't have a voice in the debate, then go around complaining that there isn't a PR electoral system. In Sweden, a party that automatically has representation 4% in parliament. Even with more support, the Greens are silenced.

Well said.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 01 September 2008 02:35 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
their new FEDERAL MP with a PROVINCIAL MPP

Ethically it is the same issue regardless of jurisdiction or are you arguing the federal NDP is more ethical than their provincial cousins?

I must have missed something ... where are the Greens confusing provincial with federal issues? Any examples?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 01 September 2008 04:31 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remind -
quote:
And one need only google Bernie Farber, Richard Warman and the Green Party of Canada to find out all you need to know about their affiliations with one another.

You linked to a Green Party is part of a Jewish conspiracy site????!!!

This is where your site got it's info which is clearly indicated in the post. http://tinyurl.com/64dhac

quote:
This "self-aggrandized leader of morality and (their) truth", the Bronfman mafia, is the same one that demonstrates (demons-traits) against Mr. Icke from speaking about the immoral agenda of the evil, pedophilic, satanic, luciferan agenda being forced on the humans of this planet. Bronfman doesn't personally show up himself, but Bronfman controls the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Green Party, B'nai Brith, and countless other foundations, organizations, etc, worldwide, and each one of these arms have 'controlled puppets.' --- Farber, Mock, Kraft for the CJC, Warman, de Jong, Russow, and many inside the Canadian Green Party, and hundreds of thousands just like these mindless controlled puppets.---

Remind please tell me your not serious and that I've missed something.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 September 2008 04:35 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Statistics Canada puts the poverty line above $20,000. Where do you think that the line should be drawn BA? Apparently under $10000 as you don't think those under the poverty line pay taxes.

Why on earth should people living below the poverty line pay taxes?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 01 September 2008 05:58 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Why on earth should people living below the poverty line pay taxes?


I am saying that they shouldn't be paying taxes, and that the government should be giving something along the lines of a GLI to lift everyone above the poverty line. Those are also positions of the Green Party, which according to BA has no policies to reduce poverty.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 01 September 2008 06:11 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
I am saying that they shouldn't be paying taxes, and that the government should be giving something along the lines of a GLI to lift everyone above the poverty line.

Thanks for the clarification.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 01 September 2008 07:29 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Somebody out there please save me one of those Blair Wilson Green Party campaign signs.

The thread on Blair Wilson himself is closed, so I’ll speak to that here.

Plain and simple, Blair Wilson is ethically challenged- no matter how much wrongdoing he is legally cleared of... and there is virtually no chance he will be cleared of all of the charges levied against him to the point that people will have reason to trust him.

That is apparent on the substance of the various auras lingering around him. The Liberals knew that turfing him was going to cost them any realistic chance of winning the seat. But his baggage was just too toxic for any level of the party to want him around.

But where others wont tread EMay will.

EMay is living testimony that for those in need of exposure there is no such thing as bad press. She was only saved by Dion’s pathetic lack of traction from her party being bitten by her cozying up EXPLICITLY with the Liberals.

Teflon Lizzie so far.

But its early in the association with Blair Wilson.

Enjoy.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 02 September 2008 05:07 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reading over my earlier post it looks like I am talking about the Green Party wearing Blair Wilson's reputation.

I am actually talking about the GP wearing the inevitable next shoes to drop, more info, about the various allegations around Wilson's business deals.

the Liberal Party thoroughly investigated Wilson. They know details not yet publically known. Had Wilson gone away quietly it would have stayed that way.

But not only did he not go away- he is running AGAINST them.

Payback is coming. And revenge won't be the main motivation. The Liberals are in close races in Vancouver Centre and Quadra, West Van, and more than double the ridings than that which they care greatly about, and where the Green Party is a significant draw on their vote.

This is so utterly predictable. Sure people can say, it remains to be seen whether it happens. But it IS a very predictable and high risk.

The Green Party simply does not have the resources, nor had the time, to sufficiently vett the allegations against Wilson. Instead you've got EMay's blithe certainty she has the recipe... and apparently surving in the brain trust only those willing to check common sense at the door.

Blair Wilson lost Sea To Sky for the Liberals. But it was always going to be a tough seat for them to keep. There may be more than a silver lining for the Liberals in this affair: the Green embrace of Wilson might provide a margin of victory in any number of seats.

[ 02 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 02 September 2008 05:38 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And BTW, a mechanics and name on the ballot question.

Presumably, the name on the ballot thing is taken care of when Wilson's nomination papers are actually submitted. IE, it doesn't matter to Elections Canada who was previously nominated by the riding association.

But what is the riding association doing for its own process? Presumably there is an existing candidate. Has he or she already bowed out, or that is soon to come?

[Presumably the brain trust did at least make sure the candidate is going to leave with the appopriate enthusiasm, or that the riding association will say the right things if there is not a nominated candidate.]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 02 September 2008 07:00 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:
... and apparently surving in the brain trust only those willing to check common sense at the door.

Blair Wilson lost Sea To Sky for the Liberals. But it was always going to be a tough seat for them to keep. There may be more than a silver lining for the Liberals in this affair: the Green embrace of Wilson might provide a margin of victory in any number of seats.


Hmmm, interesting prospective KenS, as it is predictable, as I read several reports of the Liberals stating they would not have him back, and not because of things for which Elections Canada cleared him, but for other "unspecified" things.

As such, we are left with asking: what was Lizzie "actually" doing, when she approved him? Other than to try and usurp Layton's airtime after meeting with Harper.

After all she is a lawyer, and thus realizes the import of the other hot water he is in and its implications on his political career and on the party that he is affliated with.

Maybe indeed, she was trying to destroy GP support in the riding for the Liberals. As, you are correct, it is a huge win for the Liberals in the riding. They now have that tainted yoke, off of their neck and he is clearly someone else's problem.

Maybe even it was cooked up to try to show the public that the Liberals and GP are not collaberating. Though maybe it is the biggest collaberation ever.

Or maybe it is a long term plan to destroy/diminish the GP overall, if Wilson's deeds now stick to the GP. EMay, would then be able to 'clearly' resign, for making such a bad choice, which would then free her up to run for the Liberals in Central Nova, without it appearing she used the GP for their money.

After all there could be another reason why there is no Liberal candidate in Central Nova, other than the one fed to the GP and the public. No Liberal candidate keeps clear the way for EMay to step in and not step on local toes.

One thing is for sure, if we are going into an election shortly, everything is going to play out in quick time.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 September 2008 07:46 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, it is occurring to me the only party better than the Repubicrats at the art of the smear is the NDP as practiced here on babble. Now we have a man being condemned for "'unspecified' things". Amazing.

You know, M. Spector, as we have discussed this, party politics are not only divisive, they are toxic.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 September 2008 08:39 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LemonThriller:
It, really, *really* bothers me when social democrats insist the Greens shouldn't have a voice in the debate, then go around complaining that there isn't a PR electoral system.

My recollection from 2006 was that Jack Layton said the Greens should be in the leaders' debate. Not that the networks cared what he thought.

Am I right?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 02 September 2008 09:02 AM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My recollection from 2006 was that Jack Layton said the Greens should be in the leaders' debate. Not that the networks cared what he thought. Am I right?

Not sure if this is true but if it is then he changed his mind. I heard him tell Don Newman that rules are rules and refused to say Greens should be allowed to debate. No one asked him to fight for it. He just has to say that democratically the NDP are willing to debate all challengers because theirs is the best alternative. But I think we have to acknowledge that there were two different leaders at each of these points. Jim Harris may not have provoked the same animosity that exists between the leaderships now. So I'm not sure its a fair comparison other than the fact that the New Democrats should recognize that to the average voter it appears that everyone is afraid of debating the Greens. It's an easy image to counter and that is to acknowledge they exist and that it makes no difference whether Greens are in or out. Jack will debate whoever shows up.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 02 September 2008 09:55 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You know, it is occurring to me the only party better than the Repubicrats at the art of the smear is the NDP as practiced here on babble. Now we have a man being condemned for "unspecified' things".

Since I brought it up you're presumably including me in your smear.

I didn't condemn Wilson for 'unspecified things'. Based on the allegations anyone can read about him we all know his business deals at best do not make him an ideal candidate, where ever he ultimately lands on the various lines of legality.

The only one I'm accusing is EMay- that she doesn't even blink at such a dubious stunt. The part of what I said that is not obvious, and is reading between the lines, is that the Liberals know more about him, and now have a material interest in using the info they have at a strategic time.

The relevance of that is that it is a readily apparent risk in taking him on. But May took that risk anyway. We can dispute how much of a risk it was, whether it was wise, etc. But the fact it is a risk is not 'unspecified accusations' or innuendo on my part. That EMay took a risk is a fact.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 02 September 2008 10:13 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Ethically it is the same issue regardless of jurisdiction or are you arguing the federal NDP is more ethical than their provincial cousins?

I must have missed something ... where are the Greens confusing provincial with federal issues? Any examples?


quote:
You are right about your silly rhetoric

Number 1 and 3 of your list are provincial areas of jurisdiction. Number 2 is already in place, the only difference would be where you draw that line. And that's just a start.

I have no more time for those who do not understand their own policies and expect a free pass because they are so earnest. Real life is calling.

[ 01 September 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


Any one who doesn't understand the differences in party politics between all the federal parties and their provincial parties needs to educate themselves better. You are telling me that Stephen Dion is cut from the same cloth as Gordon Campbell. We all know that Gordo leads a neo-con government that is a coalition of right wingers brought together for the sole purpose of defeating the NDP. If you think this is the same dynamic in a federal election then you are at best naive.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 September 2008 10:19 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you continue the smear. Detail these business dealings 'anyone can find about' and that the Liberals know about him? And what an interesting comment:
quote:
where ever he ultimately lands on the various lines of legality
.

So your smear shall carry over to tarry him even if he did nothing wrong because now we are left to think by the implication (so typical in Fox News reports) "...oh! So it was legal, but it was still wrong. Gee, I wonder what he did ... but he can't be trusted."

Give me a break.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 02 September 2008 10:22 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are telling me that Stephen Dion is cut from the same cloth as Gordon Campbell.


Are you telling me his not?

quote:

We all know that Gordo leads a neo-con government that is a coalition of right wingers brought together for the sole purpose of defeating the NDP. If you think this is the same dynamic in a federal election then you are at best naive.

So? What does that have to do with ethics? Are suggesting because you have a disdain for Campbell it is acceptable for the provincial NDP to behave in a manner that would be unethical for the federal NDP? Is that your argument? If so, isn't Harper enough of a threat for the federal NDP to abandon ethics?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 02 September 2008 10:25 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God I hate Green threads, but I guess they're a cross I must bear. Anywhoo, closing this particular turkey for length.

Carry on as I know you must.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca