Haven't seen any other party show up, guess they're too busy elsewhere.

Give me heck if you want but it bears being open.

Consider me confused. I have found at many times Cueball's posts to be clear and concise and very progressive.

Then, lately, there has been this strange behaviour. The constant attacking of the NDP. I thought Cue wanted to build consensus on progressive issues.

But Cue presents no alternative, unlike most of us here. Just slags at NDP policy for some reason, never anything else, lately at least or when pressed.

Most, here, are looking for thought processes, what are you contributing Cue?

I get it that you have different ideas, how does constantly attacking the NDP make what you see as progressive closer?

Forgive me Cue, I'm of the opinion that your approach won't help the left or the truth in journalism.

Was disappointed and confused with the ending after only 88 posts?

Your reason Michelle?

quote:

---

Yes, well, so long and thanks for all the fish!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
An NDP Rep says thanks to babble and they get shit upon...

---

If Brian Topp has followed babble he shouldn't be surprised or take the reponse personally. Anyone who ever follows this site would know that there are posters who seemingly come here for hours every day, and the main reason they have for coming here seems to be to attack the NDP.

Right.

Personally if it were a site filled with Tories and Liberals, and I had to read their giberish daily, I would certainly have no compunction attacking them. The fact is though, there are few of those but there are 10 or 12 NDP fanatics who seem to think this board serves no other purpose than to be a vehicle for spam flyering "good news" about the NDP and "bad news" about their erstwhile competition, and attacking anyone who finds their flyers trite and says so.

Thankfully, and you may not have noticed this but there is actually another dialogue that goes on this board that is actually quite seperate and independent of the chaff that flies up anytime anyone mentions the idea that there might be some question as to the actual qualifications upon which the assertion that the NDP is "left wing" resides. It is for the sake of this other dialogue ("damn the Torpedos") that I actually post here, not out of some obsessive desire to attack the NDP.

If I were really so obsessive about the NDP, I certainly would just go to its site and attack it, there. But I didn't even bother registering for it, wherever it is on the internet. But of course the "partisans" act as if the whole world is really an extension of their domain, and anything short total enthusiasm is a necessary target for the sake of the cause. And again, I am the one whose ideological persuastion leads to dictatorship?

I have serious doubts about the true quality of the NDP's proposed left wing status, it seems to be much like a fiction maintained by the Liberals and the Tories as a means of feigning the existance of a substantive ideological competition, which makes each party appear "distinct" for the purposes of "electioneering", as much as rendering of an a real ideological difference. The NDP of course benefits from this dubious assertion for the same reason.

Your post is a perfect example of my point, after all I can't imagine a left-wing person actually intoning, as you have just now, in a manner that makes the term socialism out to be a dirty word. Calling Obama a Socialist was a trick used by the extreme right in the USA to attack him. Your defence of the NDP on the same basis does a lot to clarify where I stand, and where you stand, and the kind of politics you really represent.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The fact is though, there are few of those but there are 10 or 12 NDP fanatics who seem to think this board serves no other purpose than to be a vehicle for spam flyering "good news" about the NDP and "bad news" about their erstwhile competition, and attacking anyone who finds their flyers trite and says so

---

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Well, the fact is this thread is all about me, apparently. Do I find it odd that on the one hand I should be castigated for proposing an ideology that leads to "dictaroship" in Banjo's post, and then told by you in another that I can not speak to the statements made about me and others, and our "daily sneers" on this thread directly.

It is not about that, you say?

How drole. RP's question are fine, but now, accoring to you, this thread is supposed to be a free-for-all attack upon me and other non-NDP Babblers, where you get to decide what it is I and others are allowed to say. And Banjo asserts that it is I whose ideological views lead to dictatorship?

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But there is only one papping poodle. Who only has to bark, and keep barking, and from then on its all about him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Just for the record, there may be 10 or 11 "socialist puritans" or some such other kind of habitual crtics of the NDP.

But there is only one papping poodle. Who only has to bark, and keep barking, and from then on its all about him.

The 'content' of the barking, or of the pointless attempts at replying, is irrelevant. Its all about persistence.

---

Ken, did I ever tell you that I think you are particularly stupid? Well, for the record, I do. Normally I would refrain from saying so, but, given your repetition of this idiotic personal attack, I see no reason not to be honest about what I think.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

But while we are doing that, I don't by any means think you are stupid.

Be my guest.

People need to see what the NDP is all about, according to its most stalwart "defenders" on this board.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
By "daily sneers" you mean, my posts I presume?

Well, the fact is this thread is all about me,

---

In the other thread, which is now closed, you claimed someone named Cueball was way ahead of the NDP by a number of years with supporting Omar Khadr. That's fine, and if you'd been an independent candidate running for election, some tiny percentage of voters might have voted for you because of it. The larger truth is that we have two very U.S. friendly old line parties in power and sharing power who needed babysiting by even more than 13 NDP MP's at the time. The NDP is the hardest working party in Ottawa, we know, but sometimes physical manpower limitations prevent the NDP from nailing our two stooge parties on every slip-shod policy of theirs and every lackey maneuver they make on behalf of corporations, banksters, or Uncle Sam his bad self.

And by the way, none of them manages to turn a discussion so it is all about either what they say or futile attempts to contradict that.

Discussion ending so called criticism is what I have a problem with.

I know that you would say that its because no one answers your 'criticism'.

Perhaps if you did better, I could compliment you more. But you sucked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
There are people are this board who have a problem with just about any criticism of the NDP, I'm not one of them.

And by the way, none of them manages to turn a discussion so it is all about either what they say or futile attempts to contradict that.

Discussion ending so called criticism is what I have a problem with.

I know that you would say that its because no one answers your 'criticism'.

But that is the way the script would go.

---

• Fact 1) I agreed that Layton's statement on the war in Afghanistan was good. However, later, it was amended with some left-field stuff about agreeing with some general who wanted to modify the war fighting strategy not end Canada's participation in the war.
  
• Fact 2) I recently stated on this board that I thought Marston's statement in Parliment on the issue of Omar Khadr was good. I noted that it was particularly better than recent comments by Beyers on the same issue.
  
• Fact 3) I credited Beyers and the NDP for being the first to draw attention to the issue of poverty in this election, even though I was not overly excited about the whole proposal.
  
• Fact 4) I consistently argued that a Carbon tax is a more effective means of leveraging positive environemental change, above "cap and trade", even to the extent that I openly supported the BCNPD's decision to make such a part of its platform.
  

I have offered up concrete articulations of the problems of creating real social change in the environment of poltical institutions design specifically to resist such change. I never, unreasonably complained that the NDP was responsible for creating these political institutions.

I have consistently offered up my views on specific policy issues such as Afghanistan, and Omar Khadr and Carbon Taxes.

You just don't seem to get it. I have opinions on these issues. They are generally consistent and I state them, and oppose the NDP on those issues when the NDP does not agree with me. Sorry.

However having consistency in ones analysis and not shifting it day to day depending on which way the farts blow from the NDP head office, is deemed to be "constantly" attacking the NDP.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Sorry dude, its an observation. Stating the facts of the election results was a "sneer"? If those results were any good at all they would be a compliment.

Perhaps if you did better, I could compliment you more. But you sucked.

Your problem Fidel is that you don't know the difference between admiting to failure and not giving up. Admitting to failure is an important part of learning how to play to win.

---

Your post is a litany of juvenile remarks and venom for me personally and not worthy of a thoughtful reply. Again, I think you must try harder if you want a civil response from NDP'ers on anything in particular. Back under the bridge with you, is the only appropriate thing I have to say to you in response

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

"You sucked" by the way was directed at the NDP, not yourself.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I have consistently offered up my views on specific policy issues such as Afghanistan, and Omar Khadr and Carbon Taxes.

You just don't seem to get it. I have opinions on these issues. They are generally consistent and I state them, and oppose the NDP on those issues when the NDP does not agree with me. Sorry.

---

And we are mindless drones of the NDP for supporting cap&trade, a platform plank that was in the party skunkworks for nearly ten years, long before you, the Liberals, and Steve Dion's new friend Liz May ever supported a carbon tax.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And we are mindless drones of the NDP for supporting cap&trade, a platform plank that was in the party skunkworks for nearly ten years, long before you, the Liberals, and Steve Dion's new friend Liz May ever supported a carbon tax.

---

By the way, I was at the very first demonstration against the Kamchitka tests organzized by Greenpeace, ever in the world in vancouver BC. In fact the first public protest ever organized with Greenpeace participation. Don't tell me about your "skunkworks" and what I do and do not think about CO2 emissions, or the environment.

I have consistently promoted the position that direct regulation is the only truly effective means of dealing with CO2 emmissions. My point about Carbon Taxes is merely a preference between two bad options. The NDP happened to choose the worst of the three, though I agree its in a tight race for last with Carbon Tax.

I supported Kyoto, only because I thought it was important to put into place an international treaty mechanism (any mechanism -- even one that did not work) that would help evolve a more comprehensive solution, in the long run. Kyoto, in my view was basically about "agreeing to discuss the issue" on the level of international law -- the international C02 commodity market, to me, seemed like utter hogwash.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I ask again at what point with the Toxic Degenerator be dealt with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Neither a carbon tax nor cap&trade will work...

---

Seriously folks, this is ridiculous. babble is not an NDP web site. People ARE allowed to criticize the NDP. In Brian's thread, Cueball's first post was not hostile. It devolved into hostility when people (including Cueball) began arguing over whether he should have posted what he did there.

Cueball: if you could write your criticisms on babble without using a sneering tone (which you do occasionally), that would be great.

Others: It's great that you're involved in the NDP. But you don't get to call people trolls or be insulting towards people who are critical of the NDP, and many of you are, and you bring these fights upon yourself when you go into mob attack mode against critics like Cueball.

As I said in the other thread - you're all adults here. Act like it. Nobody's getting warned or banned. You're just going to have to learn to get along together because you're all valuable contributors to this web site.

[ 01 November 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]