Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canadian Politics: Proroguery Electric Boogaloo (with epic Harper evil picture in OP)

15658606162

Posts

  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    A few Tories still have principles.... sometimes... I guess.

    That depends, they might have been voting that way because they were more [strike]right wing[/strike] crazy then Harper

    Principles are principles, even if they're crazy.

    CorporateGoon on
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Trus wrote: »
    I always loved these things, shame they aren't on TV anymore. This one was always my favourite:

    You sure? They've been played like once per commercial break on Space for the past couple of weeks. Including one I hadn't even seen before (which practically defines tragic irony: a bomber in WW2 has to ditch, one of the gunners is stuck, one of his fellow gunners stays aboard to try and help him until his leg's on fire and he's ordered to go...and the trapped gunner survives the crash, while the other dies of his burns).

    Shadowen on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    I wrote:
    Attn: Rt. Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper
    CC: Her Excellency the Governor General Michaelle Jean, Hon. Member John Cummins, Hon. Leader of the Opposition Michael Ignatieff

    Prime Minister,

    I am writing to express my extreme disappointment in your decision to prorogue Parliament for the second time in a single year, and my consternation at your office's attempt to convince Canadians that this is a precedented and necessary procedure.

    You and your acolytes have repeatedly claimed that because previous Prime Ministers prorogued Parliament, you have the automatic right to do so whenever it suits. What you have failed to mention, quite conveniently, is that those Prime Ministers prorogued when their respective governments had accomplished their goals for that session of Parliament. Indeed, historically the prorogue has been used in Westminster Parliaments all over the world to signal that the formal work of the legislature has come to a halt. There can be no argument that the 40th Canadian Parliament did not succeed in fulfilling its goals and priorities as outlined in the Throne Speech of 26 January 2009.

    In the Speech from the Throne, you promised a swift and complete economic recovery, outclassing all other G8 nations. In the end, Canada's economy recovered more slowly than any other G8 nation -- somehow, even the lumbering USA managed to outperform us. Key indicators such as unemployment and child poverty remain unacceptably high. By no reasonable assessment can this Parliament's business with regards to economic recovery be described as "complete".

    Furthermore, the prorogue has resulted in all legislation dying on the table. This includes your vaunted reforms to criminal justice; reforms which you have repeatedly described as critical to protecting the safety of Canadians. Apparently our safety is not as important to you as we have been led to believe.

    Your misuse of Parliamentary procedure to escape accountability to the legislature has inflicted grievous damage to the Constitutional order and stretches the limits of the power of the Prime Minister’s Office. It is my hope that you will take this letter, and recent polls showing that over 65 per cent of Canadians are unhappy with your decision, as a warning that Canadians are not at all pleased with your treatment of Canada's democratic institutions.

    Sincerely

    Next week I plan to show up at my MP's office and yell at his staffers. Write letters and call your MPs you fucks

    It doesn't help if your MP was elected twice by a huge margin and has zero organized resistance

    And the only real opposition to the CPC in BC is the NDP, and they're fag loving atheists who want muslim union terrorists to run the country, according to the word out here.

    Robman on
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    That's because you live in Hickville, AKA the interior. Move to the southern coast if you want sanity.

    psyck0 on
    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    You mean the burbs. Not hickville but full of crotchety old people, apathetic teenagers and their rich parents

    It doesn't get much souther or coastier than this

    hulg79.jpg

    Azio on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    So, I happen to live in the 905 area of ontario, which happens to have Flaherty as it's MP. Hell his office is about a 20 minute walk from my house.

    If I was to say... post a letter on his door, what should I write?

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Death threats are hilarious until they disappear you.

    psyck0 on
    Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
    steam_sig.png
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    If you are going to go so far as to post a letter on a major politician's door, do ensure that it is polite and non-threatening.

    This isn't 4chan, and I think we all have a very real understanding of just what Hired Goons can do to you when they find you, and They Will Find You.

    Imperfect on
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    So, I happen to live in the 905 area of ontario, which happens to have Flaherty as it's MP. Hell his office is about a 20 minute walk from my house.

    If I was to say... post a letter on his door, what should I write?

    95 Theses. Go old school.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    psyck0 wrote: »
    That's because you live in Hickville, AKA the interior. Move to the southern coast if you want sanity.

    I live 25 minutes from a world class ski resort.

    I win.

    Robman on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    So, I happen to live in the 905 area of ontario, which happens to have Flaherty as it's MP. Hell his office is about a 20 minute walk from my house.

    If I was to say... post a letter on his door, what should I write?

    Dear Sir,

    When you see rats fleeing a sinking ship, most people think they're cowards. No, the rats are smart. Rats are motivated by simple survival. They know the ship is sinking, and they are fleeing because they know the sinking ship has no future. It's rough away from the ship, but it's better then going down with it.

    Smart men make mistakes. In fact, the smarter you are, the bigger the mistakes you can make. Anyone can make a simple mistake, even a big stupid mistake. But it takes a really smart guy with lots of self confidence to really screw up in the sort of way that makes it into the history books. And The Right Honourable Stephen Harper has made that mistake.

    He mistook silence for consent, he mistook apathy for approval. The R. Hon. Stephen Harper has miscalculated. He is a brilliant man, perhaps the most shrewd political mind to inhabit the office in decades. And he is in the midst of his Waterloo. Even international publications have begun taking notice of this, The Economist has decried the suspension of democracy in Canada. The world has noticed this, and this will not leave the news cycle. The Olympics will only serve to focus comparisons between the oppressive government of China and the suspension of Parliament in Canada.

    I'm sure a man with your connections could find himself in great positions of power in the private sector shortly after leaving the government. But could you find those positions after a humiliating defeat at the polls? Suddenly, the rats seem wise to know the value of abandoning a sinking ship.

    Robman on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    The globe and mail has officially found its balls.
    “What do you say to those, outside of the political process, who look at what's happened here – second time in a year, different circumstances in both cases – but the argument being made by many, I mean, you know you can't pick up a story on this issue without somebody referring to the Afghan detainee issue, saying that that's really the reason you and your government wanted to stop the investigative work of the committee?” Mr. Mansbridge said.

    His words have a “my producers want me to ask” tone, don't they?

    Also, I'd prefer that interviewers not ask, “What do you say to … ?” or “How do you respond to … ?” On principle, ask for the truth and then listen to whatever someone chooses to answer to a particular allegation.

    Mr. Harper dismissed the question by saying, “I think polls have been pretty clear, Peter, that that's not on the top of the radar of most Canadians.”

    Yet polls were not what he was being quizzed about. There was a brief rally from Mr. Mansbridge on this point before he allowed Mr. Harper to return to the economy, which is his comfort zone.

    “We're in a very different kind of economic year and that's what we're adjusting to,” Mr. Harper explained, ostensibly choosing to answer the proroguing question this way: “I don't think it makes sense for a session of Parliament to go on and on without the government periodically re-examining its overall agenda.”

    I would have liked Mr. Mansbridge to push Mr. Harper on this assertion – just how big an agenda shift is he contemplating that he needs this much time off? Are the Conservatives going to return heavy on the taxes and light on crime? Will I be allowed to smoke dope?

    How much re-evaluating has to occur, Prime Minister? Is this an Eat, Pray, Love situation we have on our hands? Because then I really will lose patience.

    Recalibrating is, by the way, the same as calibrating. Except that calibrating is adjusting something to take external factors into account or to allow comparison with other data, and recalibrating is what starship captains do when scriptwriters want them sound busy and starship-captain-y.

    Recalibrating – and the word's being thrown about a lot lately – is sort of like “reversing the polarity.” It's a sensible thing for a leader to devote himself to, if he's confronting a Borg Cube.

    Azio on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yeah, I woud love to know exactly why nobody's asked Harper the tough questions. Seriously, every time I see an interview with him, I just get angrier and angrier at the non-answers he's being allowed and the non-questions he's being asked.

    No journalist, I, yet I feel like I could easily do a better job interviewing him simply by being *me* and asking the things *I* want to know.

    Imperfect on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    They found their balls with the Rick Mercer article posted a page or so back :P Though, good on them for having consistent articles on the subject. I've been seeing it making headline CBC news talking about the crisis/controversy lately.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think Mansbridge treated him with the kid gloves because his producers are terrified that if they piss harper off they'll lose their funding and their access and then get privatized

    Azio on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    I think Mansbridge treated him with the kid gloves because his producers are terrified that if they piss harper off they'll lose their funding and their access and then get privatized

    I realize Harper can be downright stupid sometimes, but I don't think he'd stoop to suicide. The CBC is, from what I understand, really well liked by Canadians and almost a cultural symbol not to mention the service it provides remote Canadian locations.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think it's more along the lines of "You fuck with us and we ensure that your journos get nothing, you hear us NOTHING from us on anything upcoming at all. You hear us? You're going to get scooped by fucking Highlights For Children if you think of trying anything funny."

    Imperfect on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I think Mansbridge treated him with the kid gloves because his producers are terrified that if they piss harper off they'll lose their funding and their access and then get privatized

    I realize Harper can be downright stupid sometimes, but I don't think he'd stoop to suicide. The CBC is, from what I understand, really well liked by Canadians and almost a cultural symbol not to mention the service it provides remote Canadian locations.
    pretty much every core conservative voter thinks the CBC is a socialist program and that their news reporting has a left-wing bias and it should be made to "compete on the open market" (aka get bought out by Bell GlobeMedia)

    and as you know harper only needs the support of his base to go ahead with something

    Azio on
  • Vic_viperVic_viper Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I think Mansbridge treated him with the kid gloves because his producers are terrified that if they piss harper off they'll lose their funding and their access and then get privatized

    I realize Harper can be downright stupid sometimes, but I don't think he'd stoop to suicide. The CBC is, from what I understand, really well liked by Canadians and almost a cultural symbol not to mention the service it provides remote Canadian locations.

    HNIC yo.

    But seriously I think the CBC is great and would hate to see that go.

    Vic_viper on
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    It would be kinda interesting if while interviews were being recorded, there would be one of those text windows on the side that we sometimes see on music channels (hopefully with out the $2 per text bullshit), where people watching the interview live streamed over the net could have live irc chat style commentary. The interviewer could use all the kid gloves he liked while the viewing public would call the two on their bullshit for all to see because what else can a good interviewer do? They just ask the questions, calling the one being interviewed on their bullshit can result in the interviewer getting the kind of reputation of being someone people don't want to be interviewed by unless forced to at least and the guest just unplugging the mic and walking away, then threatening the funding of the producer, be it public funding or private advertisers at worst.

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    ....you do know those things are screened right?

    Azio on
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Not really, what do you mean? The interview is screened or the text so it can be censored?

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Those "live internet chat" things are screened. The messages are selected and moderated by the show's producers before they are actually put up on the screen. Otherwise, it would look something like this:
    HARPER IS TOOL OF NEW WORLD ORDER GO TO INFOWARS.COM

    WELL DONE PRIME MINISTER, THANK YOU MR HARPER

    I LOVE PRIME MINISTER

    CLIMATEGATE FRAUD HOAX OUR TAX DOLLARS INFOWARS.COM

    DICKS COCKS DICKS...HARPER LOVES TEH COCK

    et cetera

    Instead of distracting bullshit to rot people's brains, how about getting some backbone and conducting actual journalism?

    Azio on
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Er, I said "kinda interesting". It was just a hair brained idea after all apparently since you point out well how it would descend into some sort of youtube comments hell, still I like the idea of public involvement in saying when a interview is being conducted unsatisfactorily during rather than after the fact like we are doing here. Since I am no journalism expert by any stretch, what would be a good example of some actual journalism with regards to an interview, so I have something I could compare all the other craptacular stuff against? Something by George Stroumboulopoulos perhaps? :P

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Those "live internet chat" things are screened. The messages are selected and moderated by the show's producers before they are actually put up on the screen. Otherwise, it would look something like this:
    HARPER IS TOOL OF NEW WORLD ORDER GO TO INFOWARS.COM

    WELL DONE PRIME MINISTER, THANK YOU MR HARPER

    I LOVE PRIME MINISTER

    CLIMATEGATE FRAUD HOAX OUR TAX DOLLARS INFOWARS.COM

    DICKS COCKS DICKS...HARPER LOVES TEH COCK

    et cetera

    Instead of distracting bullshit to rot people's brains, how about getting some backbone and conducting actual journalism?

    Journalists are largely left-leaning and voracious in their appetites to tear into hypocrites who use interviews to hock lies.

    The people who pay the journalists are largely right-leaning and voracious in their appetites to not lose ad revenue.

    Robman on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    as I said mansbridge was probably instructed by his producers to go easy on harper because they want to protect their jobs (and those of everyone else at the CBC)

    Azio on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I think Mansbridge treated him with the kid gloves because his producers are terrified that if they piss harper off they'll lose their funding and their access and then get privatized

    I realize Harper can be downright stupid sometimes, but I don't think he'd stoop to suicide. The CBC is, from what I understand, really well liked by Canadians and almost a cultural symbol not to mention the service it provides remote Canadian locations.
    pretty much every core conservative voter thinks the CBC is a socialist program and that their news reporting has a left-wing bias and it should be made to "compete on the open market" (aka get bought out by Bell GlobeMedia)

    and as you know harper only needs the support of his base to go ahead with something

    What's hilarious about this is that there's openly right-wing biased media in this country, and it's completely incapable of competing in the open market.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • Kevin R BrownKevin R Brown __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    and:

    ordered police to attack protesters at the APEC conference resulting in my dad (a press photographer) nearly suffocating

    Hey, I was there, I got a can of mace unloaded in my direction and it was bullshit. No questions there.

    However:
    - kept us out of Iraq ("You need our forces Mr. Bush? I'm sorry, their not home right now. You just missed them!")

    I am forever endebted to this man for doing this. No, really. He could've been right down there during the APEC conference beating me with a baton himself and I'd have still had to vote for him.

    When a pile of other western nations were bending over to kiss Richard Cheney's ass, Jean told him to take his psychopathic bullshit and shove it.


    Chretian didn't have the respect for young protesters that he should've, but he wasn't fascinated by the idea of killing people by the truckload. It was, well, pretty damn nice.

    Kevin R Brown on
    ' As always when their class interests are at stake, the capitalists can dispense with noble sentiments like the right to free speech or the struggle against tyranny.'
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited January 2010

    Chretian didn't have the respect for young protesters that he should've, but he wasn't fascinated by the idea of killing people by the truckload. It was, well, pretty damn nice.

    I think it was less "war is bad mmmkay" and more that the justification for the Iraq war was complete and utter bullshit.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I think usually, if there's a war going on, and the American's have gotten involved before us, we know its a good idea to stay out because it's going to be a gigantic cluster-fuck. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.

    Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • Vic_viperVic_viper Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.

    Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.

    Seeing as he argued for us going at the time I believe ya we definitely would have been there. What a nightmare that would have been.

    Vic_viper on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Vic_viper wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.

    Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.

    Seeing as he argued for us going at the time I believe ya we definitely would have been there. What a nightmare that would have been.

    On the other hand, had we gone into the clusterfuck that was iraq, The conservatives would have been shattered in the next election. I'm not even talking losing, I'm talking minority opposition. The green's would consider them to be the "joke party" of canadian politics.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Vic_viper wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.

    Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.

    Seeing as he argued for us going at the time I believe ya we definitely would have been there. What a nightmare that would have been.

    On the other hand, had we gone into the clusterfuck that was iraq, The conservatives would have been shattered in the next election. I'm not even talking losing, I'm talking minority opposition. The green's would consider them to be the "joke party" of canadian politics.

    No, they wouldn't have. Because if there's one thing the CPC is excellent at, it's hiding behind "the troops". Not actual soldiers, but "the troops". And they would have positioned a good sounding message that the Liberals are attacking "the troops" by saying they can't do the job "we" sent them to do.

    Robman on
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I get bitched out here in Grande Prairie for not respecting "The Troops" cause I have the gall to suggest that maybe going off and invading some god forsaken hell hole isn't in our best interest as a country.

    hawkbox on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hawkbox wrote: »
    I get bitched out here in Grande Prairie for not respecting "The Troops" cause I have the gall to suggest that maybe going off and invading some god forsaken hell hole isn't in our best interest as a country.

    Really? There's a lot of opposition to Afghanistan growing in Calgary.

    Nova_C on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hawkbox wrote: »
    I get bitched out here in Grande Prairie for not respecting "The Troops" cause I have the gall to suggest that maybe going off and invading some god forsaken hell hole isn't in our best interest as a country.

    It's like fighting a war is the same thing as a sports game. You've got to CHEER. And if you don't cheer, then they'll lose, and it'll be all your fault.

    Also your fault if you say they're going to win and then they flub it. Or if you say things are going well and then things go horribly bad.

    hippofant on
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    hippofant wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    I get bitched out here in Grande Prairie for not respecting "The Troops" cause I have the gall to suggest that maybe going off and invading some god forsaken hell hole isn't in our best interest as a country.

    It's like fighting a war is the same thing as a sports game. You've got to CHEER. And if you don't cheer, then they'll lose, and it'll be all your fault.

    Also your fault if you say they're going to win and then they flub it. Or if you say things are going well and then things go horribly bad.

    There is a diffrence between not supporting the mission and not supporting the troops. The mission might suck but the troops usually give it their all and deserve our respect.

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Disco11 wrote: »
    There is a diffrence between not supporting the mission and not supporting the troops. The mission might suck but the troops usually give it their all and deserve our respect.

    Yeah but where Hawk is from, the townfolk are entirely too inbred to be able to make a such an intelligent distinction.

    Decius on
    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Vic_viper wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    Well, we're in Afghanistan. That had something to do with Al Qaeda actually being there. I think we just analyze the situation and see if we really need to go in or not.

    Good bet if Harper was PM back then we would be in Iraq though.

    Seeing as he argued for us going at the time I believe ya we definitely would have been there. What a nightmare that would have been.

    On the other hand, had we gone into the clusterfuck that was iraq, The conservatives would have been shattered in the next election. I'm not even talking losing, I'm talking minority opposition. The green's would consider them to be the "joke party" of canadian politics.

    No, they wouldn't have. Because if there's one thing the CPC is excellent at, it's hiding behind "the troops". Not actual soldiers, but "the troops". And they would have positioned a good sounding message that the Liberals are attacking "the troops" by saying they can't do the job "we" sent them to do.

    To which the appropriate response would be sending canadian military forces into military action against a second nation for reasons which are internationally derided by our allies without any clear notion of an endgame objective is the very deffinition of disrespect to the canadian armed forces.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
This discussion has been closed.