Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michelle

Kara, I actually stood up and cheered your post #443.  And #449 too.  Testify! 

knownothing knownothing's picture

You stood up and cheered when she called Mulcair a prick?

 

Michelle

It's pretty easy, knownothing.  Go to post #443.  Read it.  Then go to post #449.  Read that one too.  Those are the posts I cheered.  I'm not sure why you need clarification.

The first one was her response to Brachina's pearl-clutching tut-tutting.  The second was a post about not being able to support the direction of the party right now. 

Actually, maybe I do need to clarify.  I like the fact that Kara has come right out and said what she thinks and that she's standing up to people who try to shame her into not posting what she thinks.  I agreed with her in post #443 that if she thinks the party is being led by a "prick" or an "asshole" that she should feel free to say so.   As a long-time former party member, she is giving valuable feedback, which of course will go unheeded here by certain people with their lips surgically attached to Mulcair's ass, but she should know that there are other people who are reading who appreciate that she is being straight up about what she thinks.

Yes, it wasn't polite of her to call him names.  But it should tell you something, too.  How many NDP supporters or voters or former members, even ones who didn't like the direction of the party under Jack, disliked him so strongly on a personal level that they felt he was a "prick" or an "asshole"?  I don't think I ever saw anyone on babble post anything like that about him.  And I never heard anyone say anything like that about Layton in real life conversations either, even when they disagreed with him - heck, I disagreed with a lot of party moves when Jack was at the helm, but I never disliked him.  However, I have heard LOTS of people express that kind of antipathy towards Mulcair in real life conversations.

What does that tell you?

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
The steadily rightward drift is something I cannot support.  IMO, continuing to support the NDP as they participate in that is just enabling the process.  Being better than the alternative isn't good enough.  That's why the Liberals had so much success throughout the 90s - by being a bit more palatable than the Cons.  Rather than changing the party to suit what people think they want, maybe the party should be trying to educate people as to what kind of society we could have, which ultimately would be what most people would want because it would benefit the majority of people and lead to a healthier, more equitable society.

I'm with you here.   I don't like the rightward drift of the NDP federally and also where I live, in Ontario.

There are posters here on babble who seem to think that this is an NDP board and that their job here is to defend the NDP any time it farts.  Babble has always been a left-wing political discussion board and you should feel free to be critical of the NDP.    I

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

" Babble has always been a left-wing political discussion board and you should feel free to be critical of the NDP.

Agreed. We need to remember that; but thurst also may reasonably expect counter Your point is correct radiorahim. But give and take certainly. I will try to attain that goal. Thanks.

Jacob Two-Two

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick. He totally might be for all I know, and even if he isn't there's nothing wrong with saying it. I was hoping she'd tell us what led her to that assessment of him so I could evaluate her reasons for myself, though. 

Michelle

I've told my main reason for disliking Mulcair a number of times on babble - because of the way he LED - not just participated in, but LED - the public backlash on Libby Davies for daring to speak the truth about the situation in Palestine, stood shoulder to shoulder with despicable opposition members in denouncing her (including Marc Garneau, Bob Rae, and Stephen Harper) and then stood by and watched while she was publicly trashed by these opposition assholes for over a week in the Legislature, by the national media, and for several more weeks on social media by homophobic, apartheid-supporting trolls.

The reaction from the True Believers is always the same, and will be following this post as well.  "Oh, I'm sure that didn't happen that way.  Even if it happened that way, it's not so bad.  Libby deserved it and she knows it because that's why she apologized.  Heck, maybe Libby was even in on what Mulcair did and planned it with Mulcair and Jack" (the most ridiculous excuse I heard - yeah, I'm sure Libby decided to start a shitstorm of denunciations against herself for weeks on end). "Jack apologized to the Israeli Ambassador, and you aren't pissed off at him." (As if Jack and Libby trying to do damage control by making unnecessary apologies in order to calm things down is the same thing as leading a campaign of denunciation against a caucus colleague.)

In response to this post, even though I've posted the news articles, posted the old threads, posted all of the citations during the leadership campaign, you can be sure that the Mulcair Can Do No Wrong Brigade will be along demanding citations.  And every time I posted them, they found some way to excuse the behaviour or refute the citations.

But I haven't forgotten.  It may be ancient history politically-speaking, but he's never apologized for it or even acknowledged it - although at least he didn't completely shut her out when he became leader.  He probably knew there would be hell to pay if he did.  I have no idea whether this is Kara's reason or not - but I know that I'm not the only one who hasn't forgotten and won't forget. 

Does this make him a completely horrible person?  No, not necessarily.  I think it speaks to character, but lots of people who court positions of power have character flaws - most people don't get into positions of power without stepping on people along the way.  As I said in another thread, I admired his move of meeting with a convicted cop shooter during his visit to the US, and for doing it in full view of the media (although you'll notice that some of the fans of the NDP shift to the centre were questioning that move in this thread).  That took guts and I give him full points for that.  No one is all bad.  And I can dislike someone on a personal level and yet still support them politically.

But in his case, I don't support him politically.  He may no longer be a Liberal, but he's definitely a liberal.  And the NDP is now a liberal party.  That's not completely Mulcair's doing - I think the NDP has been moving towards being more and more of a liberal party for years, and well before he came along, despite the previous leader describing himself as a socialist.  Even Jack couldn't get the machine to stay as far left as it was, much less move a little further to the left.  But Mulcair is enthusiastically moving the party even further towards the centre, and unfortunately, the majority of NDPers agree with that direction.  So basically, the NDP has the leader that suits it and that it deserves.

janfromthebruce

Libby Davies, MP (born February 27, 1953 in Aldershot, United Kingdom) is a Canadian politician from British Columbia. She has been the Member of Parliament for Vancouver East since 1997, House Leader from 2003 to 2011, and the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP) since 2007 (alongside Thomas Mulcair under the leadership of Jack Layton and alongside Megan Leslie, and David Christopherson since Mulcair became leader in 2012).

Looks like Libby Davies moved on and also remains a House Leader under Mulcair too.

nicky

Well Michelle, maybe you predicted my response but I am going to say it anyway.

I think I know Tom reasonably well on a personal level and I suspect vastly better than you do. I dont think anyone close to him could fail to be offended by some of the invective propagated by some on this board, almost all of it without any evidence whatsoever. I have always found him to be generous, witty, self-effacing and patient. 

Early in the leadership campaign, the narrative was advanced by one of the opposing camps that he was crippled by his temper, tyranical and rude and could not get along with his caucus mates. This was picked up on by some on Babble and unfortunately by  Ed Broadbent late in the campaign. It was deliberately designed to define Tom's image and kneecap his campaign.

It didnt work because it wasn't true. Scant evidence beyond a slanted version of the Libby Davies affair was ever offered. Significantly, a majority of the caucus, the very people who worked with him most closely, backed him for the leadership.

Tom presented his true self to the party through a long and challenging campaign and never revealed any of the character traits cynically attributed to him by one particular opponent.

He won the leadership by a wide margin and has just now been confirmed with a 92.3% vote. Only a tiny fringe of the party thinks like you do Michelle.

 

Kara

Jacob #506 - I was tied up at the hospital taking care of my father-in-law until my husband could get back from Newfoundland so I have read a bit but have not had a chance to respond.  And, I'm also trying to catch up on all the work I'm behind on now.  I was going to try to track down the post where somebody (not sure if it was you) asked for my reasons but I thank you for bringing it up again on the last page so that I did not have to search too far!

Michelle #507 - I agree with pretty much everything you have said in this post.  Some of it is what started my questioning of Mulcair as leader.  Also, I disagreed with the direction that Mr. Layton was taking the party but at his core, he was a compassionate, decent person doing what he thought was best at the time.

janfromthebruce #508 - Libby may have moved on or she may not have.  I wouldn't know because I have not spoken with her in years.  She may have stayed with the party just for the opportunity to represent her constituents - running as an independent she would have little chance of getting elected.  Also, if she has forgiven and forgotten Mulcair's attack on her, that just highlights that she is a better person than he is (and a better person than I am).

nicky #509 - I hadn't realized that on babble everyone had to be polite.  It seems to me I read a lot about politicians for other parties that is mean and would offend people who knew them well - either we have to be polite and respectful of everyone or people can speak their mind.  Also, the anti Mulcair sentiment may indeed be only a small fringe of the party now but that is because many long time NDP supporters have left the party.

One of my primary objections to Mulcair is his pro-Israel bias.  In the midst of Israeli agression towards Palestinians, his first statements tend to be supportive towards Israel, then perhaps a few days later he might actually deign to mention the Palestinians that are being slaughtered and their right to a state.  He has pretty consistently shown a pro-Israel bias with little regard for the suffering of the Palestinians.

Also, I have met Mulcair a couple of times - hubby dragged me along.  Both times, we (my husband and I) were in groups with other people we did not know and have never seen since.  None of the people in those groups, nor my husband nor myself, were impressed at all because Mulcair came off as arrogant, aloof, dismissive, etc.  I never spoke with him directly (because I'm actually quite a quiet person - just mouthy with a keyboard) but others in the group did and we listened.  When we were walking away, everyone was basically asking each other WTF was wrong with that guy and Mulcair was described in many terms far worse than what I have used to describe him.

In short (ha!), I stand by my description of him.  And, I apologize for not seeing the Mulcair who farts unicorns and fairy dust that others do.  There's more I could write but I have to get some work done some day!

NorthReport

Strange comments Kara, as I too have met Mulcair as well in a small group setting and my impressions are just  the opposite. I don't think anyone who was there was at all uncomfortable with him. Mulcair came across as a warm caring individual who is definitely leadership material. To each their own I suppose.

wage zombie

Michelle wrote:

In response to this post, even though I've posted the news articles, posted the old threads, posted all of the citations during the leadership campaign, you can be sure that the Mulcair Can Do No Wrong Brigade will be along demanding citations.  And every time I posted them, they found some way to excuse the behaviour or refute the citations.

But I haven't forgotten.  It may be ancient history politically-speaking, but he's never apologized for it or even acknowledged it - although at least he didn't completely shut her out when he became leader.  He probably knew there would be hell to pay if he did.  I have no idea whether this is Kara's reason or not - but I know that I'm not the only one who hasn't forgotten and won't forget. 

Does this make him a completely horrible person?  No, not necessarily.  I think it speaks to character, but lots of people who court positions of power have character flaws - most people don't get into positions of power without stepping on people along the way.  As I said in another thread, I admired his move of meeting with a convicted cop shooter during his visit to the US, and for doing it in full view of the media (although you'll notice that some of the fans of the NDP shift to the centre were questioning that move in this thread).  That took guts and I give him full points for that.  No one is all bad.  And I can dislike someone on a personal level and yet still support them politically.

(bolding mine)

Michelle, I completely understand the reasons for your dislike of Mulcair, and I'm certainly not going to apologize for his actions.

I'm curious if you think the Mulcair Can Do No Wrong Brigade is more or less the same as the Shift the NDP to the Centre Fans.  And if so, how do you resolve the seeming contradiction of those people questioning the cop shooter move?  I mean, I know the contradiction is really for them to resolve, I'm just curious about your take on it.

To me, it suggests that it might be less about cult worship of Mulcair and more about either a) Mulcair is generally an ideological fit for them, moreso when it comes to Libby, less so when it comes to amnesty for peaceful people or b) they are overly cautious and influenced by media denunciations (to the point of being insecure), so tend to support Mulcair moreso when he can generate media approval.

What do you think?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Kara wrote:

One of my primary objections to Mulcair is his pro-Israel bias.  He has pretty consistently shown a pro-Israel bias with little regard for the suffering of the Palestinians.

Also, I have met Mulcair a couple of times - hubby dragged me along.  Both times, we (my husband and I) were in groups with other people we did not know and have never seen since.  None of the people in those groups, nor my husband nor myself, were impressed at all because Mulcair came off as arrogant, aloof, dismissive, etc.  I never spoke with him directly (because I'm actually quite a quiet person - just mouthy with a keyboard) but others in the group did and we listened.  When we were walking away, everyone was basically asking each other WTF was wrong with that guy and Mulcair was described in many terms far worse than what I have used to describe him.

 

So what about when Mulcair said he is an ardent supporter of the creation of Palestinian state?

http://www.straight.com/news/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-favours-peace-ira...

“There is no contradiction between the two,” the NDP leader replied. “You can be an ardent supporter of a country and say that something that they’re doing in that case has to be changed. But it doesn’t mean you’re not a supporter of the country. You have to be very careful with those words. What I’m saying is I’m not going to use my opposition to something that they’re doing as an excuse to call for an end to the state of Israel, which is what some of the adversaries of Israel do.”

When i saw Mulcair in Regina during the leadership race he made sure that women had a chance to ask questions because guys like myself were hogging the floor

 

Kara

knownothing: Many US presidents and politicians, Conservatives, etc. also say they support a Palestinian state, usually only on Israel's terms.  Mouthing platitudes about a 2 state solution does not preclude one from being biased towards Israel.  It says a lot about one's priorities when one's first instinct in times of Israeli agression is to support the Israel rather than show concern for the Palestinians.

Re: your second paragraph - I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean??  There were other women there when I met Mulcair and they had a chance to speak.  Just because I did not choose to speak, I did not say I was prevented from speaking.  Also, permitting and / or encouraging women to speak is expected these days so I'm not sure why it should be applauded.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Maybe he is just "mouthing platitudes" to Israel as well. How do you know?

My story was only meant as a personal anecdote of his friendly demeanor. He was reaching out to people who, like yourself (as you admitted), are not likely to speak up in public unless given an opportunity.

Brachina

You guys are wasting your time, Kara hates Mulcair for the sake of hating him, no matter what facts you put forward she'll just rationalize it away, lets move on.

Stockholm

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick.

If its considered acceptable to call a male politician we dislike a "prick", does that mean we should all feel free to refer to any female politician we dislike as a "cunt"?

greyscale

Stockholm wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick.

If its considered acceptable to call a male politician we dislike a "prick", does that mean we should all feel free to refer to any female politician we dislike as a "cunt"?

I think it's problematic and distracting to start trying to equate insults to men and women on the same level, as if any insult to a woman in power does not ride a centuries-old wave of oppression and derision. Arguments of base, misappropriated logic should find no place in a frank discussion of sexism in politics.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I have spoken to Tom about 4 times, never very long any time, but I can tell you he remembered me every time. That is pretty amazing considering I probably never spoke to hi for more then 2 or 3 minutes or shorter. That shows at least he is trying. For my money as a leader in the military I always tried to remember someones name the first time I met them. It gives you a lot of cred, so to speak, and it did for him with me. And really, I look like a short, balding, middle aged, little old Jewish man. In other words there is nothing remarkable about my physical apperance. For me that speaks volumes about Toms sincerity. He has his faults, and I grippe alot, mainly because I am worried, likely too much, and I REALLY WANT Tom to be PM, and our MPs to govern, but I am glad he is the leader. When he is on, he is formidable, and head and shoulders above the  clowns leading the other parties.

Stockholm

greyscale wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick.

If its considered acceptable to call a male politician we dislike a "prick", does that mean we should all feel free to refer to any female politician we dislike as a "cunt"?

I think it's problematic and distracting to start trying to equate insults to men and women on the same level, as if any insult to a woman in power does not ride a centuries-old wave of oppression and derision. Arguments of base, misappropriated logic should find no place in a frank discussion of sexism in politics.

Maybe we should simply stop using slang words for sexual organs as a way to make a derogatory remark about people of either gender. PERIOD.

greyscale

Stockholm wrote:

greyscale wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick.

If its considered acceptable to call a male politician we dislike a "prick", does that mean we should all feel free to refer to any female politician we dislike as a "cunt"?

I think it's problematic and distracting to start trying to equate insults to men and women on the same level, as if any insult to a woman in power does not ride a centuries-old wave of oppression and derision. Arguments of base, misappropriated logic should find no place in a frank discussion of sexism in politics.

Maybe we should simply stop using slang words for sexual organs as a way to make a derogatory remark about people of either gender. PERIOD.

Yes, obviously it is petty and childish to use playground insults to refer to public figures. I don't think any reasonable person will argue the contrary. However, to equate calling a man a "prick" and calling a woman a "cunt", no matter what the situation, is to disregard the historical context of sexism and misogyny and to present a false equivalency. Attacking a man for being a man does not carry the same societal stigma as does attacking a woman for being a woman.

janfromthebruce

Yell

Brachina

Setting aside terminology issues Tom's a good guy who deserves respect and not insults, saves those for Justin Trudeau.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

radiorahim wrote:

There are posters here on babble who seem to think that this is an NDP board and that their job here is to defend the NDP any time it farts.

NDP farts smell quite nice actually, kind of a combination of peppermint and lavender. Wink

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
One of my primary objections to Mulcair is his pro-Israel bias.  In the midst of Israeli agression towards Palestinians, his first statements tend to be supportive towards Israel, then perhaps a few days later he might actually deign to mention the Palestinians that are being slaughtered and their right to a state.  He has pretty consistently shown a pro-Israel bias with little regard for the suffering of the Palestinians.

It's one of the reasons I have for not supporting him too.    Having actually seen and to some tiny degree experienced Israeli apartheid it isn't "just one of those issues" to me.

Also, Mulcair was the one candidate in the last race who had absolutely no history of being involved in social movements whatsoever.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

accidental duplicate post

onlinediscountanvils

greyscale wrote:
to equate calling a man a "prick" and calling a woman a "cunt", no matter what the situation, is to disregard the historical context of sexism and misogyny and to present a false equivalency. Attacking a man for being a man does not carry the same societal stigma as does attacking a woman for being a woman.

This.

Michelle

nicky wrote:

He won the leadership by a wide margin and has just now been confirmed with a 92.3% vote. Only a tiny fringe of the party thinks like you do Michelle.

I'm not in your party, nicky, and I already know that the vast majority of the teensy tiny minority of Canadians who actually belong to the NDP (well, actually, no - the teensy tiny minority of the NDP membership who could afford to attend Convention as delegates) don't think like me.  It's not the party choir that you have to worry about preaching to.

Also, he didn't really win the leadership "by a large margin".  He won on the fourth ballot with a not-so-overwhelming majority of 57% under OMOV (considering that there were only two people on that ballot).  Jack won the leadership on the first ballot with 53% of the vote against 5 other people on the same ballot - now THAT is winning the leadership by a wide margin.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Michelle:

I don't understand where you are coming from. Tom is the leader and I just don't see what the point is going after him now. Are you a supporter of the New Dems or not? I am not concerned if you are or aren't, I am just trying to understand where you sympathies lie. I mean, if you aren't a supporter of Tom's, and not a supporter of the NDP, then I don't get why it would matter if Tom was the leader or not. From my perspective, my focus is knocking off Harper and Turdeau. I don't like eveything Tom has done but I, personally, don't see any point in continiuing to beat up on Tom, he is the leader, and I will support him. He got the vote at the convention. The party has ALWAYS accepted that the convention can pass resolutions and make votes that affect the membership, and I am guessing most members understand this. So, it really doesn't matter if there is a minority that is opposed to Tom in one sense anyway. I understand your argument and think you have made it well and clearly. But for my money, I think its time to move on.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And as for the use of slang with a gender slant, I will not use such language going further, and for my money, I think we should all do the same and let this go. Everyone gets it. Lets focus or enery on defeating the Cons and the Libs.

Ippurigakko

Well... I lose faith Tom, im disappointed he removed socialism and change preamble or whatever!, it will fail in 2015

he will lose my vote in 2015.

Im glad im not only one, many others babblers same me dont support Tom.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

IP, are you saying you aren't going to vote, or you are going to vote for someone else?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Ippurigako: It is much easier to be a Liberal or Conservative

janfromthebruce

Ippurigakko wrote:

Well... I lose faith Tom, im disappointed he removed socialism and change preamble or whatever!, it will fail in 2015

he will lose my vote in 2015.

Im glad im not only one, many others babblers same me dont support Tom.

Mulcair did not change the preamble. At the last policy convention in June 2011 in Vancouver, it came to the floor under Jack's leadership. It was deferred until this policy convention with rewording. In that rewrote preamble there was no reference to social democratic at all.

The membership voted by over 2/3s to adopt the new preamble which was worked on "not by Mulcair". So he nothing. It was the collective membership which did it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes the "collective membership" who now all believe in something they have never heard of before it was added as an amendment to the Preamble.

How high sir is the only question a loyal soldier says when told to jump. Tell me Arthur when did you start believing in the new model of Canada as passed at the convention? Or do you just not care that someone has defined your beliefs for you without even a debate in the party.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, I am not getting into this with you. Conventions always pass resolutions that bind the party and the membership. This is NOTHING new. I am going to focus on knocking off Harper and Trudeau.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fine I will put you down as not caring that the party has claimed you BELIEVE in something you have never even heard of.  Ready Aye Ready sir.

I merely asked you the same type of question you asked me about my beliefs. I had no problem telling you what I believe and why I would vote or not vote for the NDP but then I speak for myself. I have never let others speak for me.  What is it with you, you ask a pointed question and receive an honest answer from me but then get offended when a pointed question is asked back?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, I didn't see it that way. The time to question is past; it isnt' "Ready Aye  Ready", its its been decided and that is how it is. What do you want me to do, vote LPC or stay home. Trudeau and Harper are equally dangerous. There are plenty of things I don't like about the NDP; I've said it over and over, and there are plenty of things I don't like about Tom, and I've said that over and over. The only reason I am replying is because you tied this to my question of you, and I didn't see the connection, and I'm not sure I do now. Here is the bottom line on this, Tom is 1 vote in caucus. He has to lead a caucus and I trust the caucus to stand up and do the right thing. That is what New Democrats do and that is something that makes us different from the other parties. But at the end of the day, the bigger concern I have is over who else might be PM. I have posted this before and I'll say it again, for really, the umpteemth time. If the NDP ends up being Libs in govenance, I'll quit; that will be it. But I am prepared to give them a chance. People like Jan have said this and I agree, New Dems gain nothing by fighting each other before and during an election. That is exactly what the other parties and the MSM wants. To borrow another miitary phrase, I'm "not prepared to give the bastards the pleasure". What is so hard to understand about that. I really get where you are coming from, but I am not going to focus my energy there. It is what it is. Now its lets get going, or to borrow one more regimental cry, "Allons-Y", the Vandoos!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Good then stop asking me pointed questions and I will extend you the same courtesy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, that isn't what I meant and you know it. Look, take the chip off your shoulder for cying out loud. I already emailed you and told you I respect you and your intellect. Cut me a bit of slack OK? If you are asking a question, I'll answer it as long as I realize that is what is. It wasn't personal. Ease up a bit.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The simple answer would have been you have never heard of it.  That was my point. 

I have asked others from the NDP posse but no one will admit they didn't have a clue what this new part of your party's Preamble meant let alone held it as a belief. I tried you because I thought you were a straight shooting type of guy.

It is nothing to any of you members but I find it extremely weird and in fact a lie because New Democrats have no such believe.  It is not just a policy statement it is how you define yourselves as a collective. 

I do take my hat off to the Quebec activists that got this passed as a amendment.  It is pretty much the most specific statement of principle in the whole Preamble,  The original language said nice words about diversity but instead of those that everyone can agree with you got a specific model.

Kudos to them and it shows that some of them have worked convention floors before. I hope for your parties sake that they can deliver the goods in Quebec during the next election.

 

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

AC you can engage in self-censorship if you want to.

But for some of us, defeating Harper isn't enough.

The UK exchanged Thatcherism for Blairism.    It wasn't much of an improvement.   In some ways it was worse (weapons of mass destruction anyone?)

We see those same Blairite trends happening in the NDP.

Fidel

Quotable quotes on the mythical leader of an invisible army of darkness...

Logical Tom Mulcair wrote:
"I don't think, from what I've heard, that those pictures exist and if they do, I'll leave that up to the American military,"

Tony Blair, pathological liar & proven war criminal wrote:

My heartfelt gratitude to President Obama and to all of those who so brilliantly undertook and executed this operation. We should never forget 9/11 was also the worst ever terrorist attack against UK civilians, and our thoughts are with all those - American, British and from nations across the world - who lost their lives and with their loved ones who remain and who live with their loss. 9/11 was an attack not just on the United States, but on all those who shared the best values of civilisation.

"If you, by acts of terror, kill innocent civilians, we will find you"

The operation shows those who commit acts of terror against the innocent will be brought to justice, however long it takes.

So this is a huge achievement in the fight against terrorism but we know the fight against the terrorism and the ideology that Bin Laden represents continues and is as urgent as ever.

Blair on Elvis bin Laden, alleged leader of "Al Qa'eda", a fictitious terror organization created in a Manhattan court room for the purpose of replacing the former USSR as an illegitimate colder war enemy to justify billion-dollar taxpayer handouts to 8000+ private U.S. military contractors every year.  And like all evil serpents and mythical creatures are eventually banished to watery graves, so, too, was the legendary Usama bin Laden sent to Davey Jones' locker forever and ever, Amen. Exorcizamus te, omnis immundus spiritus, omnis satanica potestas, omnis incursio infernalis adversarii, omnis legio, omnis congregatio et secta diabolica boogity.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The simple answer would have been you have never heard of it.  That was my point. 

I have asked others from the NDP posse .....

"NDP posse"

Perhaps if you have a point to make maybe you can forego the snide and nasty inuendo. Maybe be some people can simply disagree with you on the facts and not be categorized as being  part of some organized group such as a posse. This looks like nothing less than an effort on your part to de-legitamize the views of others.

MegB

Stockholm wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I have no issue with her calling Mulcair a prick.

If its considered acceptable to call a male politician we dislike a "prick", does that mean we should all feel free to refer to any female politician we dislike as a "cunt"?


No. And I'm pretty sure even you can make an argument for the distinction between the two. Cunt is not a word you get to use.

Slumberjack

We could probably avoid a lot of these gender based distinctions and arguments by favouring the generic term 'asshole' instead.

MegB

Slumberjack wrote:

We could probably avoid a lot of these gender based distinctions and arguments by favouring the generic term 'asshole' instead.

I can get behind that. Har har har.

We can use asshole, because we all have one and we've all been one at some point or other, but it needs to be acknowledged that there is a difference between calling a man a prick and calling a woman a cunt. If we lived in a fair and equitable world, it wouldn't matter. But we don't , and it does.

Slumberjack

I don't see much difference, but then again, if I were to examine things as best as I can from the point of view of an asshole, it becomes difficult to see how we arrive at a more equitable world by describing in derogatory terms persons so endowed, purely as a result of natural selection processes, while making allowances for it in other cases.  I find such distinctions to mostly serve the cause of reaction to be honest about it.

MegB

Slumberjack wrote:

I don't see much difference

Therein lies the problem. You don't understand gender inequity.

janfromthebruce

I find both offensive Rebecca for the same reason.

Pages

Topic locked