NOprophet_NØprofit, get a clue
in Hell
NOprophet_NØprofit wrote: »The twaddle is an Ontarian who is expert on Sask.
The problem sir is that the NDP federally got into bed with the big Ontario dominated unions.
Shove it. Seriously. You fundamentally misrepresent the NDP, the CCF and managed to swallow libertarian bullshit while you are at it. I recommend vomiting that excrement up before it infects your chest. It has already taken your brain.
Two words: Card Check.
You're like the Rhinoceros Party; you're both fools, but they were funny. Now fuck off.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The problem sir is that the NDP federally got into bed with the big Ontario dominated unions.
Which is actually pretty close to most of the thumbnail histories I've read of the CCF-to-NDP evolution. For example, the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article.
However, to say that the CCF formed an alliance with the CLC in 1961 is not to say that the CCF was indifferent to labour prior to that. Which I think is also what SPK was saying(ie. the CCF was pro-labour even before the merger).
____________________
*well, the first definition, which seems cogent enough
Was it "Rhinoceros Party" that prompted the "WTF"? The Rhinos are a joke political party, similar to the UK's Monster Raving Loony Party, but dating from a bit earlier. They're sometimes used as shorthand to express contempt for someone's politics, or the political system in general, eg. "Looking at the quality of candidates we've got, think I'll just go Rhino this time."
Who asked you? An NDP'er dissing unions is nothing but an utter disgrace.
Well, it's obviously a thread about Canadian politics. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that a search on "Canadian politics NDP CCF" would be the way to go about getting the information you need.
I'm still wondering if NPNP sees a distinction between the CCF being pro-union in Saskatchewan, and the NDP being pro-union in alliance with the national CLC.
In other words, is his objection really to unions, or just to the Ontario-based CLC?
Probably better to keep your personal preferences to yourself.
It's more observation really. Understanding that if the NDP wanted to play nationally they had to do something. The concern is that it's a catering to Ontario again. Part of the sadness of the reality of Canada: that some parts of the country get to run things. In federal elections the polls aren't closed here and we already know the outcome. And we understand that auto workers are much more important than anything. There's a constant element of upset with the Canadian political structure that runs through all politics. In my lifetime more vociferous from Alberta until the premiership of the personable Brad Wall, continuing with less finesse under Scott Moe.
These are generalizations but they carry much wind. Roy Romanow (another NDP premier) said once in earshot of my brother that to be successful in Sask it's necessary to be pragmatic and not ideological. It's common in Sask to separate the provincial and national and note that the fedoral NDP can fantasize and the provincial can be practical. Except what Jack Layton might hsve done.
Don't think I'll respond further on this thread and would suggest return to the other.
Why should I do that, exactly?
Does this apply to the ship's rule about foreign words as well?
Who asked you? An NDP'er dissing unions is nothing but an utter disgrace.
Bullshit. Polls in Saskatchwan in federal elections close at exactly the same time as in Ontario, They have done this for the past 15 years. And Unifor, the auto union, hasn't supported the NDP for the past 15 years either. Not since the NDP expelled Buzz Hargrove for playing footsie with the Liberals.
But don't let facts stand in the way of grinding a good regional gripe.
Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't. But, taken by itself, the complaint about people using acronyms for political parties seems a little absurd. Am I supposed to write out "United Kingdom Independence Party" every time I want to reference that group, because someone who doesn't follow British politics won't know what "UKIP" means?
Back to foreign phrases, I would assume that a sentence like "Our church has an interesting way to celebrate the Feast Of Corpus Christi" would not get you zinged by the mods. I would think the rule exists for situations where someone is using foreign words in a way that would make it difficult for most anglophones to discover the real meaning, because that would make it hard for the mods to know what the poster is saying.
And if my last paragraph has in any way shortchanged the board's rule in that regard, I sincerely apologize.
I would hope - there is no rule - that a poster who uses a lot of potentially obscure acronyms would define their terms in the thread to allow those no familiar with them to join in. Otherwise it's just a few people shouting letter combinations at each other, with the rest of us going WTF?
Surely that depends on how you want other people to think of you.
Well, I really don't think you're gonna convince too many people that they need to write "British Broadcasting Corporation" before they switch to "BBC". Anyone complaining that the acronym was left undefined would likely just be asked "What planet are you from?" or told that "there are truckloads of info right at your fingertips."
Same goes, I would assume, for everyday foreign phrases like "Amen", "Hallelujah", and "zeitgeist".
This.
Oh please. Like local Skaskatoon political parties are as well known as the BBC? You can't possibly believe that.
Well, I don't think the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota is that well-known either. But if a thread is CLEARLY ABOUT MINNESOTA POLITICS, the OP shouldn't feel obligated to type out the whole name of the group, since the context would indicate to anyone with a reasoning brain that they can just type "DFL Minnesota" into a search engine and get the meaning in less than thirty seconds.
I agree. It makes sense, and it shouldn't be too onerous. I'd say that such common acronyms as the BBC shouldn't need explication, though.
I'm not sure "BBC" was a stupid example. The larger context of the beeb being a world-famous broadcaster means that someone using the acronym isn't obligated to explain it.
While the DFL is not as famous as the BBC, the larger context of the thread being about Minnesota also means the user isn't obligated to explain it, since the time and effort required to find out what the acronym means is minimal. The difference between processing "BBC" and processing "DFL" is basically a matter of seconds.
On my thread about things people never say, someone made an unexplicated reference to "Arlene Foster of the DUP" and a "United Ireland". Now, I know what "DUP" stands for, but even if I didn't, I would think the rest of the post would tell me all I need to know to get the needed info, thus dispensing with any need for a "go the fuck to hell" rant such as Dark Knight graced us with.
My problem with you is that you can't tell the difference between my personal opinion on a thread in Hell and Ship's policy.
Strange, I didn't realize that's what I was talking about at all. One of us is wrong.
Thus proving that your preferred rule is really "anyone explaining an acronym I'm familiar with is laughably out of touch, but anyone who dares not to explain every single acronym I'm not familiar with (no matter how specific the context of the thread in question) is aloof and inconsiderate of me".
DT
HH
Didn't the foreign words thing come about because some people were using extended or unusual (untranslated) complete foreign phrases and sentences in posts - sometimes as the post itself? Not just the occasional bon mot?
For the record, I meant "small" in absolute terms, not by Saskatchewan standards. My point wasn't to denigrate the city, but just to make clear that thinking those parties only existed locally is a wide gap from the scale on which they really do/did exist.
But I thank you nonetheless for the info, since I always though Saskatoon was the second largest city in the province.