Saanich Gulf Islands Part 2

267 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by madmax:
[b]I was wondering why the people involved in the Julian West Scandal were more interested in protecting the Green Party when the scandal blew up 12 years ago. It seems alot was swept under the carpet.

It seems whenever something of a distasteful or offensive or sexually abusive situation happens the first thing people seem to do is protect the offenders and the organizations.

Clearly 12 years later, the NDP is holding the bag on a controversial Candidate that had a known record in this circle regarding his activities. It seems to me that West had tried other times to become an NDP candidate but these events didn't come to surface.

Obviously, engaging in these activities, is offensive, especially when the age of the children are considered.

Where were the adults and the leaders and those who needed to take responsibility when this happened???

Why? I understand about not going public. But clearly the effects were strong enough that it was important enough for those affected to go public 12 years later.

And then, did West disclose this information when seeking the NDP nomination on numerous occasions?

Was there a formal record of events to for the party to check out? Such as a police report, newspaper article etc.

Regardless .....

[b]At no time should people put the Green Party, an Environmental Group or a Childrens camps reputation above the need to protect children from offensive behaviour. Clearly the situation was badly handle by these groups 12 years ago [/b].

Obviously this wasn't about a group of teenagers having a sense of freedom among themselves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ][/b]


Madmax, this was discussed. There was no police report because no charges were laid.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by madmax:
[b]I was wondering why the people involved in the Julian West Scandal were more interested in protecting the Green Party when the scandal blew up 12 years ago. It seems alot was swept under the carpet.

It seems whenever something of a distasteful or offensive or sexually abusive situation happens the first thing people seem to do is protect the offenders and the organizations.

Clearly 12 years later, the NDP is holding the bag on a controversial Candidate that had a known record in this circle regarding his activities. It seems to me that West had tried other times to become an NDP candidate but these events didn't come to surface.

Obviously, engaging in these activities, is offensive, especially when the age of the children are considered.

Where were the adults and the leaders and those who needed to take responsibility when this happened???

Why? I understand about not going public. But clearly the effects were strong enough that it was important enough for those affected to go public 12 years later.

And then, did West disclose this information when seeking the NDP nomination on numerous occasions?

Was there a formal record of events to for the party to check out? Such as a police report, newspaper article etc.

Regardless .....

[b]At no time should people put the Green Party, an Environmental Group or a Childrens camps reputation above the need to protect children from offensive behaviour. Clearly the situation was badly handle by these groups 12 years ago [/b].

Obviously this wasn't about a group of teenagers having a sense of freedom among themselves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ][/b]


Madmax, this was discussed. There was no police report because no charges were laid.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by madmax:
[b]I was wondering why the people involved in the Julian West Scandal were more interested in protecting the Green Party when the scandal blew up 12 years ago. It seems alot was swept under the carpet.

It seems whenever something of a distasteful or offensive or sexually abusive situation happens the first thing people seem to do is protect the offenders and the organizations.

Clearly 12 years later, the NDP is holding the bag on a controversial Candidate that had a known record in this circle regarding his activities. It seems to me that West had tried other times to become an NDP candidate but these events didn't come to surface.

Obviously, engaging in these activities, is offensive, especially when the age of the children are considered.

Where were the adults and the leaders and those who needed to take responsibility when this happened???

Why? I understand about not going public. But clearly the effects were strong enough that it was important enough for those affected to go public 12 years later.

And then, did West disclose this information when seeking the NDP nomination on numerous occasions?

Was there a formal record of events to for the party to check out? Such as a police report, newspaper article etc.

Regardless .....

[b]At no time should people put the Green Party, an Environmental Group or a Childrens camps reputation above the need to protect children from offensive behaviour. Clearly the situation was badly handle by these groups 12 years ago [/b].

Obviously this wasn't about a group of teenagers having a sense of freedom among themselves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ][/b]


Madmax, this was discussed. There was no police report because no charges were laid.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by madmax:
[b]I was wondering why the people involved in the Julian West Scandal were more interested in protecting the Green Party when the scandal blew up 12 years ago. It seems alot was swept under the carpet.

It seems whenever something of a distasteful or offensive or sexually abusive situation happens the first thing people seem to do is protect the offenders and the organizations.

Clearly 12 years later, the NDP is holding the bag on a controversial Candidate that had a known record in this circle regarding his activities. It seems to me that West had tried other times to become an NDP candidate but these events didn't come to surface.

Obviously, engaging in these activities, is offensive, especially when the age of the children are considered.

Where were the adults and the leaders and those who needed to take responsibility when this happened???

Why? I understand about not going public. But clearly the effects were strong enough that it was important enough for those affected to go public 12 years later.

And then, did West disclose this information when seeking the NDP nomination on numerous occasions?

Was there a formal record of events to for the party to check out? Such as a police report, newspaper article etc.

Regardless .....

[b]At no time should people put the Green Party, an Environmental Group or a Childrens camps reputation above the need to protect children from offensive behaviour. Clearly the situation was badly handle by these groups 12 years ago [/b].

Obviously this wasn't about a group of teenagers having a sense of freedom among themselves.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: madmax ][/b]


Madmax, this was discussed. There was no police report because no charges were laid.

madmax

Thanks for the clarification. The threads and topics are multiple at times.

I think your link to Chantel Heberts comments could have had their own thread title or put in a Liberal or Green or Dion or May thread.

Somehow while looking at this title, Saanich Gulf Islands Part 2.... It's easy to get lost in the discussions at times [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Now that I had a couple days of free time , I was trying to figure out what went on in this riding.

That Said.

Dion and May should switch parties [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

madmax

Thanks for the clarification. The threads and topics are multiple at times.

I think your link to Chantel Heberts comments could have had their own thread title or put in a Liberal or Green or Dion or May thread.

Somehow while looking at this title, Saanich Gulf Islands Part 2.... It's easy to get lost in the discussions at times [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Now that I had a couple days of free time , I was trying to figure out what went on in this riding.

That Said.

Dion and May should switch parties [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

madmax

Thanks for the clarification. The threads and topics are multiple at times.

I think your link to Chantel Heberts comments could have had their own thread title or put in a Liberal or Green or Dion or May thread.

Somehow while looking at this title, Saanich Gulf Islands Part 2.... It's easy to get lost in the discussions at times [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Now that I had a couple days of free time , I was trying to figure out what went on in this riding.

That Said.

Dion and May should switch parties [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

madmax

Thanks for the clarification. The threads and topics are multiple at times.

I think your link to Chantel Heberts comments could have had their own thread title or put in a Liberal or Green or Dion or May thread.

Somehow while looking at this title, Saanich Gulf Islands Part 2.... It's easy to get lost in the discussions at times [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Now that I had a couple days of free time , I was trying to figure out what went on in this riding.

That Said.

Dion and May should switch parties [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Brian White

I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.


quote:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]This thread has to do with Liberals and Greens and how their strategy "backfired" on them. The article in Torstar has to do with Liberals and Greens.

And I find that blaming a "woman" for your male abusive ways is so old school. Also, calling people "retards" is also so old school and shows that when you get angry you end of blaming others as justification. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Brian White

I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.


quote:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]This thread has to do with Liberals and Greens and how their strategy "backfired" on them. The article in Torstar has to do with Liberals and Greens.

And I find that blaming a "woman" for your male abusive ways is so old school. Also, calling people "retards" is also so old school and shows that when you get angry you end of blaming others as justification. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Brian White

I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.


quote:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]This thread has to do with Liberals and Greens and how their strategy "backfired" on them. The article in Torstar has to do with Liberals and Greens.

And I find that blaming a "woman" for your male abusive ways is so old school. Also, calling people "retards" is also so old school and shows that when you get angry you end of blaming others as justification. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


Brian White

I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.


quote:

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]This thread has to do with Liberals and Greens and how their strategy "backfired" on them. The article in Torstar has to do with Liberals and Greens.

And I find that blaming a "woman" for your male abusive ways is so old school. Also, calling people "retards" is also so old school and shows that when you get angry you end of blaming others as justification. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]


remind remind's picture

*sigh* and thus we have a fine example of the mentality that has inhabited the political climate on VIsland for the last 20+ years. But hey, do you see them joining the NDP to actaully get the result they desire? No. They want the NDP to join them to get the political results desired and are angry that the NDP won't. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

*sigh* and thus we have a fine example of the mentality that has inhabited the political climate on VIsland for the last 20+ years. But hey, do you see them joining the NDP to actaully get the result they desire? No. They want the NDP to join them to get the political results desired and are angry that the NDP won't. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

*sigh* and thus we have a fine example of the mentality that has inhabited the political climate on VIsland for the last 20+ years. But hey, do you see them joining the NDP to actaully get the result they desire? No. They want the NDP to join them to get the political results desired and are angry that the NDP won't. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

*sigh* and thus we have a fine example of the mentality that has inhabited the political climate on VIsland for the last 20+ years. But hey, do you see them joining the NDP to actaully get the result they desire? No. They want the NDP to join them to get the political results desired and are angry that the NDP won't. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]You did not respond to the question or to the thread title.
You have been warned for derailing threads.
Your verbage has nothing to do with saanich gulf islands. It belongs elsewhere or nowhere.
I hope Michelle notices that your contribution is not relevent to this thread.
I have tempered my wording since the warning.
[/b]

Brian, there's nothing wrong with Jan objecting to you using the word "retarded" as an insult. It's not in keeping with the rules of this forum - it's excluding language.

And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this. Please moderate your tone.

As far as the subject of this thread goes - it seems to me that it's pretty wide-ranging, and about the riding and the campaign. So it would be nice if everyone could refrain from demanding that others stay within the parameters they wish to impose on the discussion. People can talk about what they like as long as it is related to what happened in the riding.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]You did not respond to the question or to the thread title.
You have been warned for derailing threads.
Your verbage has nothing to do with saanich gulf islands. It belongs elsewhere or nowhere.
I hope Michelle notices that your contribution is not relevent to this thread.
I have tempered my wording since the warning.
[/b]

Brian, there's nothing wrong with Jan objecting to you using the word "retarded" as an insult. It's not in keeping with the rules of this forum - it's excluding language.

And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this. Please moderate your tone.

As far as the subject of this thread goes - it seems to me that it's pretty wide-ranging, and about the riding and the campaign. So it would be nice if everyone could refrain from demanding that others stay within the parameters they wish to impose on the discussion. People can talk about what they like as long as it is related to what happened in the riding.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]You did not respond to the question or to the thread title.
You have been warned for derailing threads.
Your verbage has nothing to do with saanich gulf islands. It belongs elsewhere or nowhere.
I hope Michelle notices that your contribution is not relevent to this thread.
I have tempered my wording since the warning.
[/b]

Brian, there's nothing wrong with Jan objecting to you using the word "retarded" as an insult. It's not in keeping with the rules of this forum - it's excluding language.

And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this. Please moderate your tone.

As far as the subject of this thread goes - it seems to me that it's pretty wide-ranging, and about the riding and the campaign. So it would be nice if everyone could refrain from demanding that others stay within the parameters they wish to impose on the discussion. People can talk about what they like as long as it is related to what happened in the riding.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Michelle

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]You did not respond to the question or to the thread title.
You have been warned for derailing threads.
Your verbage has nothing to do with saanich gulf islands. It belongs elsewhere or nowhere.
I hope Michelle notices that your contribution is not relevent to this thread.
I have tempered my wording since the warning.
[/b]

Brian, there's nothing wrong with Jan objecting to you using the word "retarded" as an insult. It's not in keeping with the rules of this forum - it's excluding language.

And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this. Please moderate your tone.

As far as the subject of this thread goes - it seems to me that it's pretty wide-ranging, and about the riding and the campaign. So it would be nice if everyone could refrain from demanding that others stay within the parameters they wish to impose on the discussion. People can talk about what they like as long as it is related to what happened in the riding.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]The left won the election overall but are too dumb witted to co-operate.
fucwits from top to bottom.
[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this.[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.

I am part of the collective "WE".

"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.

Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!

Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other![/b]


Didn't he include himself in the fuckwits?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]The left won the election overall but are too dumb witted to co-operate.
fucwits from top to bottom.
[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this.[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.

I am part of the collective "WE".

"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.

Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!

Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other![/b]


Didn't he include himself in the fuckwits?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]The left won the election overall but are too dumb witted to co-operate.
fucwits from top to bottom.
[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this.[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.

I am part of the collective "WE".

"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.

Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!

Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other![/b]


Didn't he include himself in the fuckwits?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]The left won the election overall but are too dumb witted to co-operate.
fucwits from top to bottom.
[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]And it's certainly against the rules to imply that leftists here who don't agree with you are "fuckwits" although I do realize you left yourself some plausible deniability by just accusing "the left" of this.[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.

I am part of the collective "WE".

"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.

Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!

Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other![/b]


Didn't he include himself in the fuckwits?

Brian White

Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.
And Party representatives come together to bang out an agreement that suits the partners.
As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.
Its as if they are saying, Harpers a real man bully, why would we want power?
Can they not do the math?
Nevelle chaimberlain's political seed seems to have run wild in Canada.
"Here I am, I represent the left, walk on me first, mr Harper". GAWD
The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition!
Are they afraid of power??
Why the hell did they enter politics at all?
In other countrys, they do a head count and say, "Harper, get into opposition".
Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.

Brian White

Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.
And Party representatives come together to bang out an agreement that suits the partners.
As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.
Its as if they are saying, Harpers a real man bully, why would we want power?
Can they not do the math?
Nevelle chaimberlain's political seed seems to have run wild in Canada.
"Here I am, I represent the left, walk on me first, mr Harper". GAWD
The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition!
Are they afraid of power??
Why the hell did they enter politics at all?
In other countrys, they do a head count and say, "Harper, get into opposition".
Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.

Brian White

Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.
And Party representatives come together to bang out an agreement that suits the partners.
As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.
Its as if they are saying, Harpers a real man bully, why would we want power?
Can they not do the math?
Nevelle chaimberlain's political seed seems to have run wild in Canada.
"Here I am, I represent the left, walk on me first, mr Harper". GAWD
The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition!
Are they afraid of power??
Why the hell did they enter politics at all?
In other countrys, they do a head count and say, "Harper, get into opposition".
Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.

Brian White

Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.
And Party representatives come together to bang out an agreement that suits the partners.
As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.
Its as if they are saying, Harpers a real man bully, why would we want power?
Can they not do the math?
Nevelle chaimberlain's political seed seems to have run wild in Canada.
"Here I am, I represent the left, walk on me first, mr Harper". GAWD
The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition!
Are they afraid of power??
Why the hell did they enter politics at all?
In other countrys, they do a head count and say, "Harper, get into opposition".
Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Remind, how about this.
West should not have been nominated?
If West was leading lunn, lunn's campaign would have brought up the old stuff (on the last day if necessary). And who knows who made those fone calls? [/b]

Thats quite the statement Brian White. First, the NDP ran Second to Lunn in this riding last time, not the Liberals or Greens, but West was seen as possibly appealing more to environmental voters here than Burgess was (her record actually is quite good too) so he was nominated next. Secondly, it was the fourth running Green candidate who angrily refused to step down from pressure within his OWN party, and yet the NDP gets the lions share of the blame, despite the FACT that it was His vote (with the usual movements among all three) that stood more or less intact and took away the most from the Liberal candidate.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Remind, how about this.
West should not have been nominated?
If West was leading lunn, lunn's campaign would have brought up the old stuff (on the last day if necessary). And who knows who made those fone calls? [/b]

Thats quite the statement Brian White. First, the NDP ran Second to Lunn in this riding last time, not the Liberals or Greens, but West was seen as possibly appealing more to environmental voters here than Burgess was (her record actually is quite good too) so he was nominated next. Secondly, it was the fourth running Green candidate who angrily refused to step down from pressure within his OWN party, and yet the NDP gets the lions share of the blame, despite the FACT that it was His vote (with the usual movements among all three) that stood more or less intact and took away the most from the Liberal candidate.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Remind, how about this.
West should not have been nominated?
If West was leading lunn, lunn's campaign would have brought up the old stuff (on the last day if necessary). And who knows who made those fone calls? [/b]

Thats quite the statement Brian White. First, the NDP ran Second to Lunn in this riding last time, not the Liberals or Greens, but West was seen as possibly appealing more to environmental voters here than Burgess was (her record actually is quite good too) so he was nominated next. Secondly, it was the fourth running Green candidate who angrily refused to step down from pressure within his OWN party, and yet the NDP gets the lions share of the blame, despite the FACT that it was His vote (with the usual movements among all three) that stood more or less intact and took away the most from the Liberal candidate.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Erik Redburn

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Remind, how about this.
West should not have been nominated?
If West was leading lunn, lunn's campaign would have brought up the old stuff (on the last day if necessary). And who knows who made those fone calls? [/b]

Thats quite the statement Brian White. First, the NDP ran Second to Lunn in this riding last time, not the Liberals or Greens, but West was seen as possibly appealing more to environmental voters here than Burgess was (her record actually is quite good too) so he was nominated next. Secondly, it was the fourth running Green candidate who angrily refused to step down from pressure within his OWN party, and yet the NDP gets the lions share of the blame, despite the FACT that it was His vote (with the usual movements among all three) that stood more or less intact and took away the most from the Liberal candidate.

[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
It is way to obvious and way to subtle for you to see.[/b]

There's nothing subtle about this issue at all.

I am a social democrat.

I am not right wing.

Ergo, I do not vote for right wing parties.

If I were to vote Liberal in ANY cricumstance, there is some possibility that my vote would have a greater effect on the riding outcome than if I voted in a principled way.

However, if my vote "counts" by electing a Liberal, it is still a completely wasted vote because the Liberal Party is a right wing party, adamantly opposed to virtually everything I believe in.

Your bizarre idea that I am obliged to give my vote to the organized criminal conspiracy known as the Liberal Party is an effective demand that I abandon my principles.

Sorry, Buddy. You can go ahead and think that your perverse anti-democratic scheming represents some high blown principle.

You have failde to convince me.

And further browbeating and insults is hardly going to help you convince me to vote in an unprincipled way.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
It is way to obvious and way to subtle for you to see.[/b]

There's nothing subtle about this issue at all.

I am a social democrat.

I am not right wing.

Ergo, I do not vote for right wing parties.

If I were to vote Liberal in ANY cricumstance, there is some possibility that my vote would have a greater effect on the riding outcome than if I voted in a principled way.

However, if my vote "counts" by electing a Liberal, it is still a completely wasted vote because the Liberal Party is a right wing party, adamantly opposed to virtually everything I believe in.

Your bizarre idea that I am obliged to give my vote to the organized criminal conspiracy known as the Liberal Party is an effective demand that I abandon my principles.

Sorry, Buddy. You can go ahead and think that your perverse anti-democratic scheming represents some high blown principle.

You have failde to convince me.

And further browbeating and insults is hardly going to help you convince me to vote in an unprincipled way.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
It is way to obvious and way to subtle for you to see.[/b]

There's nothing subtle about this issue at all.

I am a social democrat.

I am not right wing.

Ergo, I do not vote for right wing parties.

If I were to vote Liberal in ANY cricumstance, there is some possibility that my vote would have a greater effect on the riding outcome than if I voted in a principled way.

However, if my vote "counts" by electing a Liberal, it is still a completely wasted vote because the Liberal Party is a right wing party, adamantly opposed to virtually everything I believe in.

Your bizarre idea that I am obliged to give my vote to the organized criminal conspiracy known as the Liberal Party is an effective demand that I abandon my principles.

Sorry, Buddy. You can go ahead and think that your perverse anti-democratic scheming represents some high blown principle.

You have failde to convince me.

And further browbeating and insults is hardly going to help you convince me to vote in an unprincipled way.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
It is way to obvious and way to subtle for you to see.[/b]

There's nothing subtle about this issue at all.

I am a social democrat.

I am not right wing.

Ergo, I do not vote for right wing parties.

If I were to vote Liberal in ANY cricumstance, there is some possibility that my vote would have a greater effect on the riding outcome than if I voted in a principled way.

However, if my vote "counts" by electing a Liberal, it is still a completely wasted vote because the Liberal Party is a right wing party, adamantly opposed to virtually everything I believe in.

Your bizarre idea that I am obliged to give my vote to the organized criminal conspiracy known as the Liberal Party is an effective demand that I abandon my principles.

Sorry, Buddy. You can go ahead and think that your perverse anti-democratic scheming represents some high blown principle.

You have failde to convince me.

And further browbeating and insults is hardly going to help you convince me to vote in an unprincipled way.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.

[/b]


Lemme see if I get this.

Voting for the party that most approximates your own beliefs and principles is stupid.

Voting for a party that has consistently opposed your beliefs and principles is smart.

Sorry, Brian. The only thing that makes me sick on this thread is your continued vitriolic attacks on anyone who declines to believe your deluded fantasies about the Liberal Party.

1. We have the right to support whichever party we choose.

2. We have the right to vote "strategically," but we also have the right to vote with principle.

3. Do you actually believe that post after post after post which merely calls the rest of us stupid, retards, fuckwits etc. (not to mention an apparent incapacity to spell a common Scots name) is at all persuasive?

4. You've lost. Move on.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.

[/b]


Lemme see if I get this.

Voting for the party that most approximates your own beliefs and principles is stupid.

Voting for a party that has consistently opposed your beliefs and principles is smart.

Sorry, Brian. The only thing that makes me sick on this thread is your continued vitriolic attacks on anyone who declines to believe your deluded fantasies about the Liberal Party.

1. We have the right to support whichever party we choose.

2. We have the right to vote "strategically," but we also have the right to vote with principle.

3. Do you actually believe that post after post after post which merely calls the rest of us stupid, retards, fuckwits etc. (not to mention an apparent incapacity to spell a common Scots name) is at all persuasive?

4. You've lost. Move on.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.

[/b]


Lemme see if I get this.

Voting for the party that most approximates your own beliefs and principles is stupid.

Voting for a party that has consistently opposed your beliefs and principles is smart.

Sorry, Brian. The only thing that makes me sick on this thread is your continued vitriolic attacks on anyone who declines to believe your deluded fantasies about the Liberal Party.

1. We have the right to support whichever party we choose.

2. We have the right to vote "strategically," but we also have the right to vote with principle.

3. Do you actually believe that post after post after post which merely calls the rest of us stupid, retards, fuckwits etc. (not to mention an apparent incapacity to spell a common Scots name) is at all persuasive?

4. You've lost. Move on.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I have no idea why you are gloating. "WE" lost.
"WE" were too stupid to use our great numbers against Lunn. "WE" are collectively too stupid (right now) to use our greater numbers in parliament against Harper.
"WE" are not trying to get a new system implimented that will convert votes into seats.
I am part of the collective "WE".
"WE" are pathetic. That includes you and me.
Imagine Julius Ceasar (the play) updated for canada!
Brutus and cassius and the quebec guy sneak up on ceasar (harper), knives at the ready and stab each other!
No you twits, first you get rid of harper, then you can infight.
Get your stupid prioritys right.
What a bunch of idiots. Makes me sick.

[/b]


Lemme see if I get this.

Voting for the party that most approximates your own beliefs and principles is stupid.

Voting for a party that has consistently opposed your beliefs and principles is smart.

Sorry, Brian. The only thing that makes me sick on this thread is your continued vitriolic attacks on anyone who declines to believe your deluded fantasies about the Liberal Party.

1. We have the right to support whichever party we choose.

2. We have the right to vote "strategically," but we also have the right to vote with principle.

3. Do you actually believe that post after post after post which merely calls the rest of us stupid, retards, fuckwits etc. (not to mention an apparent incapacity to spell a common Scots name) is at all persuasive?

4. You've lost. Move on.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.[/b]

When are you going to stop comparing Canada to "other" unspecified countries? We are not other countries, and there is no standard form of thought across canada even.

quote:

[b]As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.[/b]

Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law.

quote:

[b]The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition![/b]

Spoils of victory? Pardon me, if I find that offensive rhetoric. And tradition has sfa to do with it. The left can hardly insist that Harper gets to sit as opposition legally.

quote:

[b]Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.[/b]

Cooperation is a several avenue aspect, and it actually takes all to cooperate, and not just 1 portion demanding that others cooperate with them. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

How is it the left's fault(aka NDP) if Harper ruins the country? Fact is it is not, no matter how you try and yell that it is.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.[/b]

When are you going to stop comparing Canada to "other" unspecified countries? We are not other countries, and there is no standard form of thought across canada even.

quote:

[b]As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.[/b]

Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law.

quote:

[b]The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition![/b]

Spoils of victory? Pardon me, if I find that offensive rhetoric. And tradition has sfa to do with it. The left can hardly insist that Harper gets to sit as opposition legally.

quote:

[b]Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.[/b]

Cooperation is a several avenue aspect, and it actually takes all to cooperate, and not just 1 portion demanding that others cooperate with them. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

How is it the left's fault(aka NDP) if Harper ruins the country? Fact is it is not, no matter how you try and yell that it is.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.[/b]

When are you going to stop comparing Canada to "other" unspecified countries? We are not other countries, and there is no standard form of thought across canada even.

quote:

[b]As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.[/b]

Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law.

quote:

[b]The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition![/b]

Spoils of victory? Pardon me, if I find that offensive rhetoric. And tradition has sfa to do with it. The left can hardly insist that Harper gets to sit as opposition legally.

quote:

[b]Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.[/b]

Cooperation is a several avenue aspect, and it actually takes all to cooperate, and not just 1 portion demanding that others cooperate with them. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

How is it the left's fault(aka NDP) if Harper ruins the country? Fact is it is not, no matter how you try and yell that it is.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Ok, then, I have never before seen politics played out in the way it is in Canada.
In any other country, Harper doesn't automatically be first minister.[/b]

When are you going to stop comparing Canada to "other" unspecified countries? We are not other countries, and there is no standard form of thought across canada even.

quote:

[b]As all the others are to the left of harper, and share lots of common ground, (and because harper was a nasty shit during the campaign) it is their duty to the nearly 60% of voters who voted their way, to put their differences aside, make a deal and form a government.[/b]

Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law.

quote:

[b]The left WON the election. Do not tell me that they are not taking the spoils of victory because of tradition![/b]

Spoils of victory? Pardon me, if I find that offensive rhetoric. And tradition has sfa to do with it. The left can hardly insist that Harper gets to sit as opposition legally.

quote:

[b]Co-operation is not weakness, it is strength.
I do not think Canadians will thank the left for standing by as Harper ruins the country.[/b]

Cooperation is a several avenue aspect, and it actually takes all to cooperate, and not just 1 portion demanding that others cooperate with them. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

How is it the left's fault(aka NDP) if Harper ruins the country? Fact is it is not, no matter how you try and yell that it is.

Brian White

The left includes ndp, federal liberals and the quebec party.
It is only tradition that says harper gets to be PM.
Conservatives have stackloads of money and The other partys are broke, so poverty should bring them together to govern this country.
What is to stop Harper calling another election in a year while they are still broke?
Nothing.
Remind said:
"Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law". You sure? You mean 3 partys that hold a majority of seats in the canadian parliament cannot think of a way to unseat the conservatives?
They have first past the post in India too.
The leader of the largest minority does not automatically become the PM there. People have to grow up and think outside the little boxes the British made for you. Aparently that includes some on the left who are unable to see past "simon says". Are you going to cry revolution (In horror) if the 3 do combine forces for a while to get rid of the beast?

Brian White

The left includes ndp, federal liberals and the quebec party.
It is only tradition that says harper gets to be PM.
Conservatives have stackloads of money and The other partys are broke, so poverty should bring them together to govern this country.
What is to stop Harper calling another election in a year while they are still broke?
Nothing.
Remind said:
"Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law". You sure? You mean 3 partys that hold a majority of seats in the canadian parliament cannot think of a way to unseat the conservatives?
They have first past the post in India too.
The leader of the largest minority does not automatically become the PM there. People have to grow up and think outside the little boxes the British made for you. Aparently that includes some on the left who are unable to see past "simon says". Are you going to cry revolution (In horror) if the 3 do combine forces for a while to get rid of the beast?

Brian White

The left includes ndp, federal liberals and the quebec party.
It is only tradition that says harper gets to be PM.
Conservatives have stackloads of money and The other partys are broke, so poverty should bring them together to govern this country.
What is to stop Harper calling another election in a year while they are still broke?
Nothing.
Remind said:
"Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law". You sure? You mean 3 partys that hold a majority of seats in the canadian parliament cannot think of a way to unseat the conservatives?
They have first past the post in India too.
The leader of the largest minority does not automatically become the PM there. People have to grow up and think outside the little boxes the British made for you. Aparently that includes some on the left who are unable to see past "simon says". Are you going to cry revolution (In horror) if the 3 do combine forces for a while to get rid of the beast?

Brian White

The left includes ndp, federal liberals and the quebec party.
It is only tradition that says harper gets to be PM.
Conservatives have stackloads of money and The other partys are broke, so poverty should bring them together to govern this country.
What is to stop Harper calling another election in a year while they are still broke?
Nothing.
Remind said:
"Well, seeing as how that is not how FPTP works, what you are suggesting is that the other parties just chuck aside Canadian law and do what they want. As it is not "tradition" it is electoral law". You sure? You mean 3 partys that hold a majority of seats in the canadian parliament cannot think of a way to unseat the conservatives?
They have first past the post in India too.
The leader of the largest minority does not automatically become the PM there. People have to grow up and think outside the little boxes the British made for you. Aparently that includes some on the left who are unable to see past "simon says". Are you going to cry revolution (In horror) if the 3 do combine forces for a while to get rid of the beast?

Cueball Cueball's picture

There is nothing "left" about the Federal Liberal Party. Unless of course you mean "left" in the purely abstract and relative sense. In the sense, say that there was a "left" wing of Mosulini's Fascists. This is not meant to compare the Liberals with the Fascists, but merely to point out that the term is highly relativistic in nature and entirely dependent on the context in which the calculation is made.

The LPC is a "centerist party" just like the NDP.

Cueball Cueball's picture

There is nothing "left" about the Federal Liberal Party. Unless of course you mean "left" in the purely abstract and relative sense. In the sense, say that there was a "left" wing of Mosulini's Fascists. This is not meant to compare the Liberals with the Fascists, but merely to point out that the term is highly relativistic in nature and entirely dependent on the context in which the calculation is made.

The LPC is a "centerist party" just like the NDP.

Pages

Topic locked