Sunday, April 11, 2010

Guergis To The Back Burner

The big assumption, Parliament's return tomorrow will bring a Liberal assault on the Guergis front. This isn't a statement on the seriousness, but really the Liberals might be wise to put Guergis on the back burner and set an issue orientated return.

The Guergis story is guaranteed to be a focus tomorrow, as the media asks further questions and more is digested. This simple fact means the Liberals don't need to draw further attention with a barrage of accusations and demands in Question Period. A question or two, but when it comes to the high profile queries, less gotcha, more "kitchen table". It would appear the other opposition parties are using Guergis to pivot, introducing more substantive considerations. I'm not sure the Liberals want to be the sole opposition party aggressively chasing this story.

This isn't to say Guergis isn't important, it clearly requires "follow up". However, the whole matter has a gossipy aspect, which has provided great "fun", but hardly a vote mover, nor anything that improves the Liberal brand. Two weeks out from Montreal, and already you see the high signal considerations fade, as the Ottawa fog returns, superficial, reactive politics returns. For the Liberals, we need to stick to our supposed game plan, and that means not getting distracted by daily revelations, but concentration on the wider internal challenges. Guergis is clearly relevant, but I don't see any "payoff" for the Liberals, it doesn't address what ails. Couple that fact with the realization that the story has outside traction regardless, focus isn't required.

What might be noteworthy, if Ignatieff rose tomorrow and DIDN'T refer to Guergis.

56 comments:

Tomm said...

Steve,

I think you are making strategic sense here. As you noticed already, Ignatieff's "sound bites" on this issue Friday were not all well received.

Harper will get credit for being decisive, but will be criticized for lask of full disclosure. Let the media cur's rip the flesh off this one.

I think the LPC gets more mileage by keeping some distance and moving on.

Omar said...

Lovely. You are making "strategic sense" to the likes of Tomm. While I tend to agree with the sentiments of the "back burner" angle, it would NOT be an option for the Cons if the tables were turned. Now, I suppose one could say that by taking the high road and giving this story the "kitchen table" treatment, the Liberals would be doing politics differently, but is that what these scurrilous brigands deserve? Perhaps 'gotcha' politics is what Canadians have become accustomed to? Made accustomed to in no small part by the very party mired in a potential criminal scandal. I'm torn. There is a large part of me that says, "give it to these pricks and give it to them hard".

Jerry Prager said...

Exactly, this is the only kind of story the media cares about, trashy People magazine stuff, entertainment over substance crap. No point in following the media anywhere on this (or anywhere else for that matter).

Ti-Guy said...

I'll decide for myself when I've had enough of this story and when I think the Liberals should focus elsewhere, thank you very much.

Big Daddy still has some explaining to do with respect to *what* the RCMP is investigating. If there's nothing much to talk about, then he can end the idle speculation and turn down the heat quickly if he wants to.

CK said...

I touched on that in one of my posts yesterday: http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2010/04/10/iggy-youre-stuck-on-the-wrong-tune-change-it-already-while-youre-at-it-bury-adscam-once-and-for-all/

The Bloc and the NDP don't even seem to be touching on that at all.

Tomm, is unfortunately correct, Iggy's pouncing on this issue is not being well received.

He has a golden chance of gaining a new seat if he plays his cards correctly. Folks in that riding are tired her and her hubby's antics, and they want them both to go away.

Simcoe-Grey is not Calgary-West: it is not what one can call a 'safe' Harperconseat. In fact, I'm sure Harper would have canned her a hell of alot sooner if she were in a so-called 'safe' seat.

Usually with these types of scandals; even with a different candidate from scandal-ridden incumbent party, they don't win.

However, it is not etched in stone. If Iggy continues to nit-pick every detail about the happy couple, the voters of Simcoe-Grey could just as well make him pay as well, by voting NDP, or even the new Harpercon candidate.

Sir Gallahad said...

What the Liberals should be zeroing in on, is Harpo's judgement and credibility.

What did he know about Guergis, and when did he know it?

Did he only call in the RCMP because he knew the story was going public?

It seems to me that he kept dead weight around for a long time, without any action.

And hell no the story should not be left alone.

Can you imagine the Cons, if this was a Liberal cabinet minister.

CK said...

Jerry is absolutely correct; it's got it all: drugs, hookers, corruption, booze; the only thing missing are the Hell's Angels or the Mafia. Although, knowing so-called MSM, I'm sure the Hell's and/or the mob will show up in this melodrama soon enough.

It's fluff; entertainment.

Steve may well have called the Mounties, but I think that is just to let the voters think that he actually cares and is giving the illusion of giving some semblence of doing something.

As I've pointed out earlier, as well as others, this scandal is the ideal distraction for brother Steve.

#bustyhookers has replaced the more important issues of the day Brother steve is so desperately trying to escape from: torturegate, insipid crime bills, their mismanagement of the books, 1000s of Canadians still out of work...I can go on...

Iggy must concentrate on those much more important issues that have been put on the back burner.

Ti-Guy said...

torturegate, insipid crime bills, their mismanagement of the books, 1000s of Canadians still out of work

Are you suggesting the Liberals haven't addressed those issues? Those things aren't going away anytime soon.

I saw the NDP and the Cons get up to their old tricks again on Friday's Power and Politics: Establish an ephemeral alliance where they all of a sudden think there are more important things to talk about to make the Liberals look petty and/or given to smear-mongering.

The fact remains that there is a minister of the government who resigned from cabinet and was kicked out of caucus and is now under investigation by the RCMP.

That is still fresh and *is* important. Or looks like it, in any case. Big Daddy can make it go away if he wants to by simply being more forthcoming.

I'm sure it suits the NDP and the Cons to talk about something else. That's reason enough to stay on this issue, at least for the next week, when the House is sitting again.

Bill Mooney said...

This doesn't have to be a back burner issue if you approach it from a bigger perspective; namely that of transparency and accountability. Detainee docs, Income trust tax leakage, RCMP brought in we know not why......the Harper government can be attacked for not being open. It's what they ran on....

CK said...

Bill Mooney: the Harper government can be attacked for not being open. It's what they ran on....

I'm more cynical these days. In reality, Canadians don't seem to care about transparent and accountable government, it they did: Harper would have been run out of office a long time ago.

I put the question to Sandra Dee Crux in her comments section yesterday: she not only didn't answer my question, nor did she even leave the comment there for her cheerleaders to have for lunch.

Since Adscam resurrection is her latest favourite activity and Brother Steve is so obviously her hero, I asked her: a) if Brother Steve could ever do any wrong in her world? b) if it were Harpercons that were in power back in the day and they engaged in ADSCAM, how would she view them,then?

Never got an answer, but it further proved my point that many don't really care about accountability and transparency. They only care about crushing the opposition, mainly the Liberals

RuralSandi said...

CK - that's the problem. The Cons and NDP's only interest is crushing the Liberals, principle be damned.

Joe Comartin said the NDP would be asking questions. If they don't, it's look pretty suspicious.

ottlib said...

I am not so certain that Mr. Harper would enjoy this as a distraction from his other problems.

A domestic scandal involving drugs, women, and possible influence peddling will trump an international scandal every time.

The Liberals should continue to press this but they need to be smart about it. There are alot of unanswered questions and the Liberals should be asking them but they should leave the overheated rhetoric at home. Approach it with a more businesslike perspective.

Played wrong this story becomes nothing more than gossip mongering. Played right this story becomes a nightmare for the Conservatives.

Anyong said...

All this phoo-pah about Guergis (pronunciation..Goo-er-gis)is to take the heat off Afghanistan. Who is Guergis anyway...the lowest rung on the chair? Or, way up there where she can cause the country to dip into crisis? I'm sick of hearing about her.

Steve V said...

This story moves forward no matter what the Libs do. With that simple fact obvious, it allows latitude. It's not an either/or proposition.

Tomm said...

Mark Holland was the attack dog on CTV's Question Period. He was reasonably effective and it keeps it away from Ignatieff.

Sadly, for the LPC anyway, the CPC rep, Candace Hoeppner, was equally effective.

Harper has given this to the ethics commissioner and the police. It is effectively out of his hands and also out of his control.

Tomm said...

Omar,

The sky is blue.

Come on, you can do it.

Ti-Guy said...

In reality, Canadians don't seem to care about transparent and accountable government, it they did: Harper would have been run out of office a long time ago.

Well, the Conservatives managed to garner the support of 22% of the eligible electorate last election, so as far as I'm concerned, he was run out of office. It's just our dysfunctional, unrepresentative electoral system that's kept him there.

Think of this: On the strength of 25% of the eligible electorate, he can get a majority. And if you're wondering why this is happening, just look at comments like "anyong's" above, which are all too common these days. People will put much more effort into telling everyone how they *feel* about something than they'll spend reading a newspaper or taking the time to vote.

Omar said...

My sky will be blue when this flirtation with intellectually narrow, theologically driven miscreants is relegated to the dustbin of Canadian political history. We shall overcome.

Tomm said...

Ti,

People really aren't engaged in the minutiae of politics.

I know you want them to not only become engaged but think as you do. That just isn't possible.

But I do think the federal parties all should make it a priority for them to work on engaging Canadian's so that more vote. I actually expected to see something of that nature in Harper's last two acceptance speeches, but didn't.

Maybe if we gave people tax credit for voting...

I don't know, but I agree with you. 60% of people voting just isn't enough. However, please quit saying that Harper's government is not legitimate. It is our system. It is the same as our system allowing constitutional coup de tat's.

Tomm said...

Omar,

Perhaps the governemnt will change some day.

But you've got to admit that Canada needed to kick the LPC to the curb.

Do you disagree with the new direction for the military? Do you disagree we need to strengthen law and order? Do you disagree we need to renew our immigration package? Do you disagree that we needed to throw cold water on the climate change extremists? How about improving relationships with US? How about separating ourselves from sympathy to the extremist Sikhs/LTTE/Hams/Hezbollah groups?

We needed to do all of that. The Liberal's were not going to do it.

The CPC government is needed at this point in time.

But be comforted that the pendulum of politics will surely swing again.

JimmE said...

Eeep!
I agree with Tomm!!!

This is the system, change it if you like/can, call the present PM anything you like; but he was elected given our rules. That Mr D Fecked-up & that Iggy has not set the nation on fire is the fault of folks like me who call themselves Liberals.

Marpman said...

If pursued Harper will merely say that he will not comment while the matter is being investigated by the RCMP.
The Liberals, as Steve suggested, should move on to other topics and allow the investigation to run its course. They can remind the government that they are monitoring and watching and are anxiously awaiting the outcome.
If the RCMP bury it I am not sure what else could be done, in theory they are independent.
Either way, this story will harm the government as it brings to the front Jaffir and the low-element which seems to make up the Con government. Reminds us poor voters of just where this government has derived from..

CK said...

Oh Tomm, But you've got to admit that Canada needed to kick the LPC to the curb.

You're starting to sound like wingnuts like Mary T, Hunter and Sandy Crux. That above statement implies that Steve should have no opposition.

Do you disagree we need to strengthen law and order?

Yes I do disagree as a matter of fact. Our crime rate is actually lower. These crime bills he's proposing are insipid and unnecessary. What's next? Bring back the death penalty?

ACtually, Tomm, I disagree with most of what you're suggesting. Throwing cold water on climate change experts. You climate change deniers...it's tiring! Climate change denying is just another way to justify a lifestyle of over consumption and waste without remorse.

Improved relations with the U.S.? After Hillary's visit and Obama trying to ditch Steve whenever he gets a chance, the possible withdrawal of the US from NAFTA; how are those relations improved?

Omar said...

What CK said.

Ho-ly-fuck, Tomm, for the amount of time you've known me through the lens of blogging one would assume you'd know how I pretty much feel about the issues you mention.

Do I disagree with the new direction for the military? Hell yes! I deplore the billions spent on making our military a front line killing machine. It makes us far more enemies and ingratiates us to friends I'd rather not have.

Do I disagree we need to strengthen law and order? That's a funny one that. No, Tomm, I believe by improving peoples lives through things like education and living conditions there will be no need to strengthen laws that I feel are plenty tight enough. Building more prisons to house more of our poor, minorities and the mentally unstable is not a solution.

Anyway...blah, blah, blah...do me a favour and don't talk to me any more, you give me a headache.

Sir Gallahad said...

Hello Tomm,

I would just like to add to CK,s comment about the US.

You think relations have been improved between our nations.

Hillary also slapped Canada over the maternal health initiative, for it's lack of family planning, and access to safe abortions.

We were also chided over the Arctic council.

Harper also embarassed us in Copenhagen, for being climate change deniers.

I am just curious to know why you think the crime bills are good.

Why do you think they will decrease crime, and make society safer?

I think they will end up costing more money, and do nothing to reduce crime or make society safer?

Do you really believe people should go to prison for marijuana possession?

Do you believe in minimum sentences, and taking away judicial discretion?

How many billions of dollars is it going to cost to run all these new prisons, filled with as Omar puts it our poor, minorities, and mentally unstable.

Tomm said...

Steve,

I am increasing your traffic levels.

When do I get my commission?

Sir Gallahad said...

Hello Tomm,

Never mind your commission.

How about some answers?

Tomm said...

Sir Gallahad,

OK.

Canada-US Relations have improved immensely since January 2006. Under the Liberal's there was scorn and abrasiveness from the Canadian side. Harper has changed the relationship to one of supportive adults finding ways to work together. I discount Clinton's recent comments since she has been speaking very undiplomatically to many friends and allies. It has been the new administration's "frankness". As Lawrence Cannon said, he has no problem with her comments.

Copenhagen was a disaster, but not for Canada. It was a disaster for international negotiations. I know people who were over there. The ENGOs and China/Brazil all tried to force their views on the proceedings. That caused all the Barcelona set up agreements to come unravelled. I saw that actually as a feather in Canada's cap for resisting the BS.

The crime bills are stiffening up our justice system. Where I live people are getting slaps on the wrist for assualts, including sexual assaults. I personally think that we risk descending into a chaotic and lawless society if violent criminals don't see retribution for their actions.

With respect to pot, I agree it likely shouldn't be illegal. But that isn't a show stopper for me. I've got teen aged kids.

Incarcerating criminals is expensive. What do you suggest? Bracelets?

Tomm said...

Sir Gallahad,

Part 2...

Do I believe in minimum sentences... depends on the crime, but for serious crime, yes.

Do I believe in judicial discretion, yes, but not the breadth I've seen imposed.

And since we're skirting around another issue, that of aboriginal crime, I should probably comment. Sentencing circles in aboriginal communities can be very effective but not as the sentence for a violent crime. They are best used earlier to try and keep a local person on the straight and narrow. Once that person has committed a violent crime, community circles can become a mechanism to indulge the criminal without causing a change to their behavior or others in the community to whom this person is a role model.

Judicial discretion should take into account considerations around family and community, but at no point should that be an excuse for individual actions. We must be considered responsible for own own deeds.

Sir Gallahad said...

Tomm,

"I personally think we are descending into a chaotic and lawless society if violent criminals don't see retribution for their actions"

Funny, I thought going to prison was punishment for breaking the law.

I guess before Harpo came along we were a "Violent and Chaotic Society"

Crime rates have been dropping in Canada, and that includes violent crime.

"Incarcerating criminals is expensive"

Exactly my point, thank you for making it for me.

"Tough on Crime" is a slogan. I prefer solutions over slogans. I would like to address the root causes of crime (lack of education, poor living conditions, poverty etc)

I would like money spent on crime prevention, and educational and recreational programs.

I notice you did not provide me with a dollar figure, for all these new prisons.

Copenhagen, was a disaster for Canada. We were ridiculed because of Harpo.

You dismiss Hillary's statements.
Why? she was correct in what she said. We are being embarassed over the maternal health plan put forward by Harpo. It is just not the US criticizing the plan.

In your world Tomm, we were just this terrible crime ridden unrespected country, until Harpo came along.

Jerry Prager said...

I still say it's Adscam versus PMOActionPlanAdsam, a few bad apples versus a systemic use of taxpayer money to finance a propaganda campaign designed in part to keep Conservative media afloat long enough to deliver the vote: see Peter MacKay marrying into the CTV.
See the Duffyverse, see the new Senator wannabe journalists lining up the pro-Harper copy in thanks for not having to lineup at unemployment centres because conservative media was about to collapse of its own dead weight. More money to more insider people than AdScam any day of any week.
PMOActionPlanAdScam coming to a court of opinion near you.

Sir Gallahad said...

Darrell Bricker has his poll out,

CPC 37%
LIB 27%
NDP 15%
GRN 10%
BLC 10%

Bricker, has been known to be wrong before.

Numerous times.

Gene Rayburn said...

"Canada-US Relations have improved immensely since January 2006."

Ha ha until 2010 it seems...

The weather's nice out there Tomm. What are you doing inside?

CK said...

Sir Gallahad, I read that in the National Pest this fine evening myself.

While I agree that Ipsos-Reid may not be the most accurate, it is still trouble. This is how the rest of the right wing media gets started in brainwashing apathetic Canadian voters. More and more, Con cheerleaders are resembling that of a cult, like Rev Sun Myung Moon's clan or the Hare Krishna. It's almost like programming.

Harpercons won't let a pesky little detail like accuracy get in the way of their goals for sure.

Although, the poll was taken weeks ago, before the climax of the Mr & Mrs Disfunctional affair, I can't help but wonder about the timing of releasing this poll.

Remember, Steve always the tactician who manipulates most of the media today, as Jerry Praeger points out.

Steve V said...

"Bricker, has been known to be wrong before"

You mean like every single election? If you look at past predictive record, they're the worst and that's just a fact jack.

The Cons have a lead, but I don't base that on anything Oopsos tells me.

Steve V said...

So much for that idea, and it looks like the NDP is all in as well:


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/793693--opposition-mps-to-grill-harper-on-guergis?bn=1

RuralSandi said...

Tomm has fallen for the "fear" strategy that the Republicans use in the US.

Crime folks - be afraid, very afraid and Harper will save you.

This is a Frank Luntz strategy - fear, hockey moms, guns, religion and babies, hot dang.

Tomm said...

Gallahad,

I am not opposed to spending from the public purse for giving people a helping hand, improve education, and of course, meet all legal and moral obligations to aboriginal Canadian's whom WE have treated abominably by a whole series of paternalistic governments.

I also did not mean to leave the impression that I oppose preventative public measures to control crime. They are effective and cost effective.

However your view that violent crime is decreasing is not the case where I live. I understand it is decreasing in other parts of Canada. Perhaps you live in one of those regions.

Do you disagree with jailing violent criminals? Should a repeat violent criminal be jailed for 3 months? 1 year? 5 years? Perhaps it is on this point we disagree.

With respect to Hillary's statements, didn't you see the hypocrisy in her position? Her President (her immediate supervisor) had just nurtured through Congress a health care bill that keeps it against the law in the US to use federal funds for abortion. Isn't Canada, I mean "Harpo's" Canada fully funding abortions on demand? But I guess you missed the university class that differentiated empirical evidence from rhetoric.

And, for your information. Your use of the pejorative term "Harpo" for the Prime Minister, just decreases the credibility of everything else you say. If you wish to engage in debate, don't use terms like that.

Fred from BC said...

And, for your information. Your use of the pejorative term "Harpo" for the Prime Minister, just decreases the credibility of everything else you say. If you wish to engage in debate, don't use terms like that.

Ah yes, the usual suspects spewing the usual puerile crap: Harpo, Steve, Cons, conbots, Reformatories, etc. So predictable.
So sad.

They really can't help it, Tomm. They're children at heart, and particularly petulant children right now; no matter how frantically and hysterically they flail about, whining and moaning, shrieking and hyperventilating, NOTHING ever seems to reduce the Prime Minister's popularity. No matter how much they try, no matter how vicious and slanderous they get, still the public is blissfully unaware of just how evil, heartless, corrupt and incompetent this government really is.

There's only one sure way to get the attention they so desperately need: public suicide on Parliament Hill. A can of gas, some white robes and a Bic lighter, and ALL THE ATTENTION they crave can be immediately theirs!

(couldn't happen to a nicer, more respectful bunch...;)

RuralSandi said...

Fred from B.C. - uh, huh. The Cons don't use Iffy, Lieberals, etc.?

Clean up your own house before you work on others.

Personally, I write Cons - shorter than writing Conservative.

Steve V said...

Oh Freddie, don't confuse apathy with popularity, Harper loses to "nobody" on every key question. You clowns kill me, the guy is a byproduct of divided opposition, there is no affection beyond his childish base. Slurp, slurp.

Tof KW said...

Fred from BC said...
Ah yes, the usual suspects spewing the usual puerile crap: Harpo, Steve, Cons, conbots, Reformatories, etc. So predictable.
So sad.


I personally like calling them populist windbags with neoliberal economic policies wrapped around social conservative dogma.

However that's obviously too long of a phrase, so I just simply it to what they themselves admit they are* - Dirty Liberals.


*- everytime they use the excuse "but the Liberals did it too."

Sir Gallahad said...

Hey,

Look getting a lecture from Fred from BC.

Fred you would have a lot more credibility, if you would practice what youu preach. I have seen your bullshit on a lot of sites


Tomm,

Please no lectures. Some of the stuff I have seen from conservatives is truly filthy, and vile. Harpo is pretty mild compared to that.

But I have also seen your comments on other sites, and you do not engage in that behaviour. You do put your points forward in an intelligent manner. Even if I do not agree with them.

Gene Rayburn said...

"Ah yes, the usual suspects spewing the usual puerile crap: Harpo, Steve, Cons, conbots, Reformatories, etc. So predictable.
So sad."

Hypocrisy thy name is Fred (unfortunately) from BC. Maybe we should check out your past comments from immature name calling. Then again judging from past feedback for you, you were probably too drunk to remember posting them.

Sir Gallahad said...

Fred from BC,

In other words you silly twit, you do not use and AD HOMINEM, attack to condemn, and AD HOMINEM attack.

Get It?

Yes I know I also used one, but it is the only way to deal with an ignoramous such as yourself.

Follow the example of Tomm.

Gene Rayburn said...

But Tomm has a sense of humour and a bit of charisma. Fred's just angry and poorly thought out.

Tof KW said...

Gene Rayburn said...
Fred's just angry and poorly thought out.

Dude, you just totally described the majority of CPofC supporters!

Fred from BC said...

RuralSandi said...

Fred from B.C. - uh, huh. The Cons don't use Iffy, Lieberals, etc.?


I don't. I'm an adult...how about you?

Clean up your own house before you work on others.

Not my responsibility, sorry.

(we Conservatives are big on *personal* responsibility, haven't you heard?..:)


Personally, I write Cons - shorter than writing Conservative.


Sure you do, Sandi. And yet you have no trouble writing 'Liberals' and not 'Libs'? Nice try...

Fred from BC said...

Steve V said...

Oh Freddie, don't confuse apathy with popularity, Harper loses to "nobody" on every key question. You clowns kill me, the guy is a byproduct of divided opposition, there is no affection beyond his childish base. Slurp, slurp.

Sure, Steve. And in politics, that fact is worth exactly NOTHING to your side. Sorry.

(and hey, nice to set you setting a good example of maturity and common courtesy here. Keep it up..;)

Steve V said...

You're not worth much more. Just a useless Conbot, that takes kneejerk positions, no matter the content. You're a bore, nothing more. Sorry.

Fred from BC said...

Sir Gallahad said...

Fred from BC,

In other words you silly twit, you do not use and AD HOMINEM, attack to condemn, and AD HOMINEM attack.

Get It?

Yes I know I also used one, but it is the only way to deal with an ignoramous such as yourself.



So...do as I say, not as I do?

Or was that something about a pot and a kettle and what color they were? You're a funny guy...:)


Follow the example of Tomm.

I do EXACTLY THAT every chance every chance I get. It's my default position, in fact (look around a few other blogs). I very much enjoy political discussion, even with opponents. Then along come people like you who just go out of their way to be as offensive as possible, and I just can't help mocking them. Call it a character flaw, if you like.

Everyone gets respect from me until they prove unworthy of it. Even you.

Fred from BC said...

Gene Rayburn said...

Hypocrisy thy name is Fred (unfortunately) from BC. Maybe we should check out your past comments from immature name calling. Then again judging from past feedback for you, you were probably too drunk to remember posting them.


...and right on cue, a perfect example of what I'm talking about here. :)

Sir Gallahad said...

Fred from BC,

Even after everybody has crapped all you can over you, you return for some more.

As for you having intelligent debate on other boards, I haven't seen one intelligent discussion out of you yet.

You don't respect me, wow now you have really hurt my feelings.

As if I give a flying fuck, what you think about anything.

Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe you.

I swear you only take a break from your drinking, to drag your ass over to your computer, so you can post inane bullshit.

Steve V said...

You're banned :) And no, I won't even bother to read, just like the other clowns. Click.

Sir Gallahad said...

Steve,

Thank You.

That guy trolls everywhere.

He adds nothing to any discussion, anywhere.

Him, Wilson, Rat, and Canadian Sense are the absolute worst.

Tomm is alright, he doesn't act like the above bunch.

Fred will probably keep on trying.
Not even realizing the futility of it at all.

Steve V said...

All those ones are banned. Waste of time.