The NDP’s hidden agenda....

[cybercoma]

What you are forgetting is there is a lot of voodoo science that is behind these so-called cost calculations (the "costs" of GHG emissions is the biggest example). So while I do believe in a personal responsibility - I don't believe in bureaucrats imposing arbitrary costs based on ideology driven science.

So are you for regulations or taxation?

[cybercoma]

I got this result after doing a Google search for "NDP communism". This was the second search result. You're right, the ideological leanings of the NDP are no secret, and thanks to the internet's shattering of the old media as the vanguard of the left, it's more difficult for people to hide who they are then ever before.

NDP treasury board critic Mathieu Ravignat’s communist past highlighted by Tories

I guess that settles it then. The entire NDP is Communist and has a secret agenda for a violent revolution.

I guess Woodworth proves that the entire CPC are batshit crazy anti-abortionist religious zealots.

[cybercoma]

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/crashdepression/ccf.htm

"A real united front involves an agreement on fundamentals and a belief on the part of each co-operating group in the sincerity of the other group. In tactics at least there is no agreement whatever between the Communist party and the C.C.F.... The overthrow of the C.C.F. rather than that of capitalism would seem to be the main object of the Communist party of Canada."

The battle between the NDP and Communists existed since the party's inception as the CCF.

[kraychik]

Is your goal to troll nonsense and absurdity? If the NDP as a party had sympathies for those things, how on earth would that be trivial? That's a rhetorical question. I don't really need you to reply with more ridiculous flaming.

Do you really want me to post links of the NDP's (in)famous Libby Davies dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories? I think I also remember Thomas Mulcair doing the same.

To hell with it, I'll do it.

Here is Libby Davies calling for an "investigation" into the events of 9/11, as per the conspiracy theorists from "9/11 Truth".

Here is Libby Davies endorsing the flotilla and directly supporting Hamas, while hiding behind the cover of supporting "the people" of Gaza.

Great photo of Libby Davies.

Here's Libby Davies embarrassing herself with the camera in front of her, rambling about the imaginary "occupation" that's apparently existed since 1948 and the "siege" of Gaza. She's essentially parroting the Islamist proaganda of Hamas (a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood).

There are so many more examples I can provide, from Thomas Mulcair's statements to moves from Sid Ryan, but the history of the NDP's sympathies with Islamist movements is symptom of its leftism. This really is just the tip of the iceberg, as the pro-Islamist and pro-Hamas slant of the NDP is really inconsequential in the broader scheme of things, but it does demonstrate the NDP is consistently leftist. To their credit, I suppose?

Edited July 10, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

I guess that settles it then. The entire NDP is Communist and has a secret agenda for a violent revolution.

I guess Woodworth proves that the entire CPC are batshit crazy anti-abortionist religious zealots.

I never said that the entire NDP membership was composed of communists. That's your hyperbolic strawman.

[cybercoma]

Libby Davies says something stupid. That must be party policy, eh?

[kraychik]

Here's an amusing blog post from a passionate NDP supporter and fanboy of el Presidente (who he describes as a socialist).

Vacation with Castro.

[cybercoma]

Look at that. A blogger is now indicative of NDP party policy. Have a good night. I'm done entertaining your ridiculous posts with responses.

[kraychik]

Libby Davies says something stupid. That must be party policy, eh?

It's not hard to find this stuff, you know? The NDP trips over itself trying to be everything to everyone, it seems. On the one hand, the NDP wants Israel to remove its blockade of Gaza, but on the other it recognises that Gaza is smuggling arms and other tools and materials used in the implementation of terrorist operations. Well, which is it? Either the blockade is necessary to protect the security of Israel, or it's unjustifiable and Israel should just endure more terrorism by ending the blockade.

This is directly from the NDP website, and the position is clearly schizophrenic.

New Democrats echo the United Nations’ concerns about potential clashes between Israeli forces and the activists, and urge restraint on all sides. The NDP has consistently called for an end to the blockade of Gaza to alleviate the human suffering caused by the conflict. We also recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns with respect to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and have called for effective international arrangements to address these concerns.

Here is the late Jack Layton playing the moral equivalence game between both Israel and Hamas, which is essentially a pro-Hamas (a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood, as I stated before) position. Equating the behaviour of a an army operating within the bounds of a moral code of conduct defending a democracy with that of a terrorist organization which is the armed wing of an anti-democratic Islamist group really reveals where the sympathies of the NDP lie.

Urgently, New Democrats call on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to join UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in publicly pressing for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

New Democrats are extremely concerned about the loss of innocent civilian lives in both Gaza and Israel. The use of force in Gaza must cease; so too must rocket attacks on Israel. We join with world leaders in describing the shelling of a United Nations Headquarters as indefensible.

Here is a story of two NDP participants clearly expressing solidarity with Hamas while pretending to be for "the people" of Gaza: 2 NDP MPs support contentious flotilla to Gaza

Here's former leader Nicole Turmel refusing to denounce the anti-Semitic BDS campaign:

There are endless examples of this. I'm not sure why this surprises you. You're probably sympathetic to these viewpoints anyways, considering you're a socialist.

[TimG]

So are you for regulations or taxation?

You missed the point. I am in favour of regulations that are effective at addressing real problems. I am not in favour of regulations that only exist to satisfy an ideological agenda. The NDP pushes environmental regulations that fall in the latter category. Edited July 10, 2012 by TimG

[Evening Star]

Evening Star and cybercoma are both refusing the acknowledge that there is context here that is relevant and missing. I do not follow Manitoba politics, so I am painfully ignorant about this. However, I do not believe for a second that the NDP lowered the tax rate on small businesses to zero without taxing them somewhere else. If I'm right, it's a wise political move so that leftists can spout the talking point of the NDP provincial leadership lowering the tax burden on small businesses, while ignoring other avenues where they drove up costs for these very same businesses (minimum wage regulation, environmental regulations, licensing, safety inspections, and so forth).

If you take ten dollars out of my pocket and then put back five, don't go tell everyone you put five dollars in my pocket while ignoring the ten dollars you initially stole.

I was responding to a question about whether the NDP has in fact advocated for a zero tax rate on small businesses. I answered this question. Now you are moving from this to the MUCH broader and harder-to-pin-down question of whether they raised or lowered the cost of doing business overall. There is nothing wrong with questioning this but it's a different question. I did not refuse to acknowledge anything. (I do not have an answer to this question and I am sceptical that anyone who is not a professional economist could begin to seriously answer it.)

[Moonlight Graham]

Exactly, they are a “government in waiting” and we truly know nothing about their socialist roots, nor their patronage of unions…………We have the precedent of past Liberal and Conservative Governments to look at how they govern, but no such history associated with the NDP.

On the other hand, they spell out their philosophy on the party's website. They are democratic socialists, so we should expect that if they govern.

In terms of precedents to how they would govern, we can look at how they have governed at the provincial level, as Premiers/official governments, to see what they might do.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Evening Star]

(The NDP identify as social democrats. The meaning of this can be looked up very quickly with Wikipedia.)

I find the discussion about NDP policy on Israel to be interesting since I recently talked to someone who will never vote NDP in part because they are too pro-Israel in his view.

The Canadian Jewish News seems to think that Mulcair is pro-Israel btw:

http://www.cjnews.com/?q=node/89616

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/israeli-president-set-for-warm-reception-from-mulcair/article4105154/

Edited July 10, 2012 by Evening Star

[jbg]

Here's former leader Nicole Turmel refusing to denounce the anti-Semitic BDS campaign:

I could represent her but I deal with financial, not moral, bankruptcy.

[Guest Derek L]

Unlike the LPC and CPC, the federal NDP and provincial NDP are the same party. Look up their records.

Yes, but as we all know, they’ve never governed federally……….I forget where I read it (here?), but since the NDP doesn’t have any representation within the Senate, they will have a difficult time passing legislation (Perhaps thankfully) when contrasted with the CPC and LPC……..Are the NDP a truly viable choice? A choice that appears disparately to be running from their socialist past.

[Guest Derek L]

Seriously? We know nothing about these things?

Well, with their recent skirting of election laws in relation to receiving contributions from unions, I’m forced to ask, if they weren’t caught, would we, the majority even know?

[Guest Derek L]

I got this result after doing a Google search for "NDP communism". This was the second search result. You're right, the ideological leanings of the NDP are no secret, and thanks to the internet's shattering of the old media as the vanguard of the left, it's more difficult for people to hide who they are then ever before.

NDP treasury board critic Mathieu Ravignat’s communist past highlighted by Tories

Good point, wasn’t the current NDP finance critic a communist?

[Guest Derek L]

On the other hand, they spell out their philosophy on the party's website. They are democratic socialists, so we should expect that if they govern.

In terms of precedents to how they would govern, we can look at how they have governed at the provincial level, as Premiers/official governments, to see what they might do.

I’m not sure about them having the political maturity to govern at the federal level…………Wasn’t it Joan Crowder (Sp?) that likened the Canadian Forces to terrorists?

[cybercoma]

Yes, but as we all know, they’ve never governed federally……….I forget where I read it (here?), but since the NDP doesn’t have any representation within the Senate, they will have a difficult time passing legislation (Perhaps thankfully) when contrasted with the CPC and LPC……..Are the NDP a truly viable choice? A choice that appears disparately to be running from their socialist past.

If the Senate continually and regularly shot down any legislation passed by the NDP because they have no Senators, Canadians would see it as undue interference by an unelected body and it would create a crisis. You can take that to the bank. It would merely expedite the NDP's aim of abolishing the Senate.

[Guest Derek L]

If the Senate continually and regularly shot down any legislation passed by the NDP because they have no Senators, Canadians would see it as undue interference by an unelected body and it would create a crisis. You can take that to the bank. It would merely expedite the NDP's aim of abolishing the Senate.

You’re suggesting that if the NDP is unable to ramrod their social democratic legislation through the Senate, without reaching a consensus of it’s members, the NDP will just “abolish” our current system of Government? You feel Canadians will be supportive of this?

[cybercoma]

You’re suggesting that if the NDP is unable to ramrod their social democratic legislation through the Senate, without reaching a consensus of it’s members, the NDP will just “abolish” our current system of Government? You feel Canadians will be supportive of this?

You suggested the Senate would engage in blind partisanship and shoot down everything the NDP passed because there is no one from the NDP in the Senate. I was responding to that claim. The Senate has never done this. Even when Chretien had his majorities and the Senate was filled with Mulroney's senators. In fact, until Harper took over, PMs would appoint people from other parties on occasion. However, the Reformer in Harper may be trying to discredit the Senate by appointing worthless hacks to its ranks. In any case, the Senate does not, as a rule, merely shoot down legislation on a partisan basis as you suggested, so it shouldn't happen. But, it could. If it does and the House can't pass legislation because the Senate is blocking everything it will create a crisis of democracy, period. It doesn't matter who is in power, so this has nothing to do with the NDP being "unable to ramrod their social democratic legislation." It has to do with any democratically elected parliament being unable to fulfil their mandate because an unelected senate is blocking all of their legislation.

[Moonbox]

In any case, the Senate does not, as a rule, merely shoot down legislation on a partisan basis as you suggested, so it shouldn't happen. But, it could. If it does and the House can't pass legislation because the Senate is blocking everything it will create a crisis of democracy, period.

Absolutely. I don't really understand where you're coming from here Derek. Senators, even dumb and lazy ones, are supported by all sorts of legal and political advisors. They're not there to play political hack, but rather be a safeguard against them.

[punked]

It is hard to do but probably the right thing. It took NS 150 years from the time it started to reform their upper house until the end to get rid of them. They said the same things in 1800s about what would happen to NS if they got rid of their upper house but both sides of the political spectrum over 150 years stripped powers from their upper house. By 1925 they were able to kill off the house and nothing changed because most of reasons why you need a upper house can be done cheaper and more efficiently by bureaucrats who are much easier to fire when they abuse their power.

[Black Dog]

Discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity is a staple of the contemporary left. For every racist on the right, there are several racists on the left.

Proof please.

[kraychik]

Proof please.

So-called "affirmative action" policies, notions of "group rights" (i.e. Quebec as a distinct society over other distinct societies in Canada, "women's rights", "gay right" and other such nonsense), so-called "hate-speech" legislation, and the desire to homogenize people against their will (the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, Islamist countries, and so forth). Unjustifiable discrimination is a staple of leftist ideology.