There is nothing redeeming about being forced to subsidize propaganda. Since when do we have to accept "mandatory carriage" for something that entirely insults the senses, basically a wing of a political party. This proposal might just be the biggest political subsidy imaginable. I don't want to pre-judge, but look, Kory Teneycke is a political hack, and his cheerleaders like Ezra Levant suggest a radicalism that the CRTC doesn't have to promote.
An early sign, listening to Levant say Canada needs a network to show the "other side" of the climate change debate. Anybody who has seen the "debate" down south, realizes how powerful a misinformation debate can be in forming public opinion. It is not the job of mainstream networks to put forth pro and con, as though equally viable, when the later enjoys almost NO acceptance amongst the expert community. 98% of Canadian climatologists believe in global warming, and a responsible journalist weighs this inherent fact when deciding who is given voice. About the only defence of the deniers, scientists are now partisans, radicals, so we then turn to this nonsensical questioning of accepted practice, that we teach every child in this country. I'm sorry, but giving licence to wingnuts and marginal voices isn't "choice", it's the decay of simple reason. Show me a slew of Canadian climatologists supporting the denier, and we'll talk, until then, leave the stupid to themselves, don't promote them to the dial, particularly if my cable bill is supporting the insanity.
You can question the political bent of certain outlets, but they bear no relationship to the philosophical bent that this new network is entertaining. A touch of irony that Kory Teneycke leaves CBC to start this project. That fact alone speaks to a certain balance which this new medium will never entertain, should it manifest itself as advertised. Again, when Ezra Levant has a boner that could cut a diamond, let's do away with the "straight shooter" nonsense that recent hires attempt to soothe.
Funny, the argument of choice, to justify the creation of something that offers no such thing. At the very least, let the marketplace determine the value, but please, please, don't treat the manifestation of a far right ideologue as though "news". It's advocacy, plain and simple, the "news" is FIXED, so let its proponents support it. And, before someone chimes in with the most lame of all examples CBC, I defy anyone to watch an edition of Power and Politics, or At Issue and tell me a wide perspective doesn't find voice.
This debate isn't about journalism, more news networks, it's about bringing propaganda to the masses, in effect it's about a cultural war that a bunch of zealots want to wage. You can dress it up anyway you want, and I suspect a deliberate THRUST right now to appear somewhat moderate, but if the underlying intention is correct, its like parsley on the side.
I have spent about 10 minutes of my life watching FoxNews. I don't subscribe to it on my cable package, and that's my choice, others are free to do what they wish. I hardly think it's progress, that a advocacy group should get an artifical revenue stream to prop up their presentation, which insults every fibre in my body.
We`re at war, and that isn`t hyperbole.
46 comments:
Wunderkid Baby Gobbels is Born .
Frightening .
CBC has been doing the liberal dirty work for years. Feeding questions to M.Ps at committee. Using a major Liberal contributor to do polling. Then the liberals in turn appoint CBC employees to plumb jobs in the senate and G.G. If that is where you go now for your balanced news the you can not be held responsible for som of your "warped" opinions.Just let the rest of us that dont drink from the same Kool-Aide jug have our own pitcher to drink from LOL. I promise the amount of subsidy will be a small portion per jug compared to the current lemonade stand and i would like a different flavor.
If they want to start one fine, so long as a completely biased anti-FOX News is created alongside it (in other words Canada's answer to MSNBC) to call them on their bullshit.
And neither of them had better be placed on my basic cable package. There is a glut of media that needs to be allowed to die already. Since the Reformatories are all gung ho for unbridled, neo-liberal capitalism ...then this should be fully paid for by those who specifically wish to subscribe. Let market forces decide its fate.
"CBC has been doing the liberal dirty work for years"
Yes, just watching Tom Flanagan on CBC right now. The stupid, it BURNS.
Here comes infotainment for the extreme right, corporatism redux, the last unlamented victim of the 20th century gets to have its day to propagandize freely, like they did for the Conservatives in the 1920's and 30's when being a Canadian fascist was something of which they were proud. And never mind the anti-socialist rhetoric, these neo-corporatist, they don't need the state except as a servant class. This will be socialism of Big Business.
bubba said...
"Using a major Liberal contributor to do polling."
Are you referring to Frank Graves of EKOS who has received $12 million in federal government contracts, including two with the prime minister's department, the Privy Council Office, worth $131,440...
FROM THE HARPER GOVERNMENT
Oh ya, he donated to the Conservative Party of Canada too (admittedly also to the Liberals, to show his impartiality).
As Steve said; the stupid - it burns!
Bubba: people went to war to defeat this kind of conservativism in 1939-45. And yes, it was labour and liberals and organgemen who ended what conservatives began. Fascism in a can is still fascism.
TofKW: there is nothing liberal about neo-liberalism: it's as a coin termed by conservatives to define neo-conservatism, it's corporatism with a weakened democracy to make sure the money keeps the power.
Cable boycott.
Jerry - exactly. NeoLiberalism was terminology to define the "liberalization" of economies in a move to increased capitalism and globalization. The term "liberal" is used in this circumstance to indicate that the system was being "loosened up", etc. It's like some old Communists in China being called "conservatives". They aren't right wing by any stretch - actually the exact opposite - but, in keeping with the definition of "conservative" they prefer to stick to the old ways...
What shocks me about this all, is the brazen way these clowns announce that it will be a "conservative" news agency. Not even pretending to be unbiased (like Fox). By announcing - in such a brash way - that it would be a right wing news service they are automatically eliminating would-be viewers who might be "borderline" undecided (or just clueless, as is the case with Fox fans)...
Bubba: spoon-feeding Liberals, then schtumphing Con Cabinet ministers... Yup - I call that "bias". Wonder if the question was meant to do damage to the Liberals, being public and all? Recent McGill study (I believe it was McGill) shows that the Liberals received more negative stories than any other party during the last election - and the CBC was no different.
I have my doubts that the CRTC will approve any kind of "news" channel created to advance a specific political agenda, at least insofar as basic cable is concerned. Aside from that, the number of people who would actively tune in to watch someone like Ezra Levant is vanishingly small. It's one thing to read them in print and quite another to hear them. Imagine a talk show consisting of Jason Kenny, Pierre Polievre, and Rob Anders. Sounds fun, eh?
I do not want to become more "americanized" by having a Con channel:
I dread the thought of the following programs:
1) "Rod and Gun show" starring Candace Hoeppner and Garry Breitkreuz
2) "I Dream of a Majority" starring Stephen Harper
Seriously, I am concerned because media is supposed to be unbiased but when the government attempts to bring in an "informercial" channel to promote their ideas, it needs to fought against.
What next, a rewriting of History?
A very good read by a journalist no less, which details how this all of a sudden network came to be, and it looks like the PMO fix is in:
Here.
Big Winnie:
2) "I Dream of a Majority"
I'll probably regret asking but is Harper the one in the belly dancer costume? The right isn't exactly known for its bevy of hottys.
Jerry Prager, not really disagreeing with you about neo-liberal economics, and for the record there's nothing conservative about it either. However I am using the term neoliberalism properly, it is derived from what was classic liberal economics.
It might surprise you that prior to the 1960's it was usually the Liberal party advocating deregulation and trade liberalization to increase trade with the US and provide for cheaper imports here (to the detriment of local manufacturers) and the Conservatives opposed to it. Obviously this all changed during the Mulroney administration when 'Reaganism' and 'Thatcherism' introduced the world to the theories of Milton Friedman and the Austrian school fools.
Getting back on topic, the last thing this country needs is a cable news network spinning Trickle-Down theory as if it works. It's solely the cause of the current global economic crisis. This ultra-Libertarian free market philosophy along with the thoroughly mistaken idea that taxation is automatically theft; are ridiculous doctrines which, regrettably, became a standard part of the Right’s catechism of (poorly examined and ill-advised) beliefs.
Bubba might want to check who was involved in the "feeding the Liberals" questions and what that reporter is now up to, as well as the personal connections of that reporter to the Conservative government, before he uses that as an example of CBC Liberal bias".
Funny, that he used that particular example of Liberal bias isn't it Scott?
Josh said...
"I have my doubts that the CRTC will approve any kind of "news" channel created to advance a specific political agenda"
You are correct in that they usually frown upon 'first tier' applications that get placed in everyone's basic cable package (and we all get to pay extra for whether we want it or not). However as we've already seen with the cell phone changes of late, a cabinet decision can override any CRTC ruling.
Steve, thank for the PMO link to Fox North, when in need go to the most reactionary pool of money available, the man who almosty single-handedly destroyed genuine journalism: Rupert Murdoch. All Harper all the time.
TofKW: I know what neo-liberalism is supposed to mean, but corporate capitalism has no foundations in liberal philosophy, whatever it's roots in 19th century liberal capitalism. Corporatism is a conservative Catholic ideology originally picked up by Mussolini and Duplessis, and what corporate capitalism should really be neo-corporatism: (neo-conservatism) where the individual entrepreneur is relatively meaningless, (except a handful of old style capitalist-robber barons like Murdoch) and where the state bureaucracy is gradually being replaced by a Dilbert Manageriat (O won't that be so much better than Lib-Dem socialist bureaucrats.) Except of course, it's still socialism, but run for profit by legal entities that can't sign affidavits in court because they have no conscience to bind them. That's the future, deregulated greed, amoral decision making, and unprincipled polity. All messaged into place by Harper's personal propaganda machine.
That is what Harper was after , when in March 2009, went to see Rupert Murdock and some one else, to do with Fox.
I don't know where to start...
I've been forced to pay for CBCs biases for years, amd told to shut up and like it. All of you are just shocked that I still haven't learned to drink my victory gin and love big brother.
So, finally, when a conservative media outlet is being proposed this is some kind of Nazi event?
I'm glad you guys have found each other.
But just to annoy you I will quote from your own posts to show the ridiculousness of your positions:
"Since the Reformatories are all gung ho for unbridled, neo-liberal capitalism ...then this should be fully paid for by those who specifically wish to subscribe. Let market forces decide its fate."
Right. I'm with you if this was a level playing field. But you don't want a level playing field. None of you want CBC to be a subscribe only channel and none of you want the government to pull its billion dollar subsidy.
"Yes, just watching Tom Flanagan on CBC right now. The stupid, it BURNS."
I'm sure we were all so proud that CBC had its pet conservatives to trot out to show critical balance. I would be surprised if the new conservative channel didn't do the same.
"Fascism in a can is still fascism."
Excellent comment. A conservative news channel is pretty much a statement of fascist intent. This is clearly the end of democracy as we know it. Or maybe just the end of the long left turn we have had to endure. I suggest you don't watch the new channel.
"I have my doubts that the CRTC will approve any kind of "news" channel..."
Well I hope you are wrong and we still live in a country that contains freedom of expression.
"...the number of people who would actively tune in to watch someone like Ezra Levant is vanishingly small..."
If you are right, I guess Ezra won't be on TV very long. But in your heart of hearts you don't really believe that do you.
I knew this new channel was a good idea when Don Newman wrote his essay opposing it.
I can't wait for Heather Mallick's piece.
I am hopeful that they may even have a story or two about Pablo's problems with the law. At least as much as Jaffer's run in with Toronto's finest.
The real problem with the hyperbolic remarks in this post (and they are hyperbolic) is that they belie what is already going on right now.
You don't think that Canadian media is biased already? I hate to break it to you, but an Angus Reid poll done in late 2008 found that 90% of respondents believe media outlets are biased, and 56% of reporters let their bias affect their reporting of that year's election. That's pretty sad, don't you think?
The only thing that will change with this new network will be that propaganda will be delivered from two sides instead of one.
Let people judge for themselves.
Anybody who actually thinks we have a liberal media bias at the moment is simply ignorant. What is simply pathetic, that people just ape imported talking points and yet the FACTS almost support the exact opposite. Get a clue, go outside of the low IQ con circle jerk. Embarrassing.
Tomm
Who had hired Kory? Again, you conbots are like a bad stupid convention.
Where to start? Good grief man.
Doyen: trouble is, most of corporate media is slanted to the right. We are hard pressed to find anything in the middle or unbiased; let alone to the left.
Anyone who thinks the CBC is too Liberal obviously doesn't watch/listen it all that often.
Now we're getting an infomercial Channel for the Harpercons.
We need more balanced journalism which isn't to the right or left; not more Harpercon cheerleaders
A corporatist media supports corporatism: it doesn't support liberalism or social democracy, in fact during the prorogue crisis it was obvious that until CAPP forced the corporate media into responding they weren't prepared to defend democracy. Tory democracy means letting the servants vote for their masters interests Fox, the master of malice and misinformation is not a voice for liberal or social democracy, in the States or here when it arrives, it will be malice for the masters, so much for the classless society.
Tomm, Bubba - prove that CBC is Liberal bias. Prove that media in general in Canada is Liberal bias. Check out all the newspapers - put Liberal bias in one column and Con bias in another. You will be shocked.
CBC - the President is a Conservative supporter and was appointed by Harper.
Good grief, these Con supporters are either very stupid or paid to pump out Harper's talking points.
Waiting for the proof guys (Tomm and Bubba)
Bubba and Tomm have yet to see what a real liberal-biased media outlet would look like. Watch MSNBC sometime before you bitch about the CBC. You know, our supposed 'lefty' network that employs such conservative commentators as Rex Murphy, Allan Gregg and Andrew Coyne.
By the way Tom Flanagan has already dispelled the theory of the liberal-biased media, on CBC none the less. I may disagree with his politics, but unlike you two Harperbots, Flanagan calls it like it is. Too bad more Reformatories can't think for themselves.
We need to harvest this burning Stupid. We could heat a few homes off of Tomm and Bubba alone.
That's not even including Bubba's infamous lunch benefits.
@Steve V - 90% of Canadians polled feel that Canadian media is biased in some fashion. That NINE ZERO percent. This was an Angus Reid poll too, not one of those no-name ones. So if you don't think the media is biased then you are in a very small minority of people. The rest of us are smart enough to know bias when we see it.
Can't seem to find this poll anywhere. LOVE to see a link.
Since you're so smart, I guess you read the McGill review, wherein they found a Conservative bias in both the 2004 and 2006 election, including disporportionate negative stories about the Liberals from, wait for it, The Toronto Star.
Just a conbot looking for rationalization so he can watch his propaganda on my dime.
Suddenly this makes that tirade of Kory's against Grave's look more like a deliberate planned action to not only further the smearing of the CBC (nothing new there) but also to poison the well in trying to point out how such a channel as this appears to be is a direct tool by the radical right in the culture war politics that the CPC/Harper has blatantly embraced for many years from the hardline right wing in the USA.
I am fine with someone setting up such a station so long as carrying it is not mandatory. If there are enough people willing to pay for the service to survive on its own without aid then fine, but it should not be allowed to call itself a news network, but an infotainment network, because real news deals in facts first without any overt bias. This network clearly appears to be intended to have an overt bias and on that ground alone it disqualifies itself from being considered a news network. Real news networks have to apply the rules of journalistic integrity and propriety, and any overtly politically biased reporting is by definition unable of meeting those standards and therefore it follows that allowing them to call themselves news and journalists debases the meaning of those words, allows a fiction to mask itself as truth, and far from enriching the marketplace of ideas pollutes it, all to serve a political end that cannot be attained without having to tip the scales in such a blatant and offensive manner.
BTW, I would remind people that the definition of L(l)iberal bias does not mean anything that does not praise the CPC and Harper, which is how it appears so many that claim Canada's media is so biased appear to believe it works. If anything the CPC and Harper should be receiving even more critical attention than they do, since they have formed the government for over four years now. Any governing party should be the main focus of critical reporting, they are after all the ones with the power of government and most deserving of such focus by definition. Those that cannot grasp this fact are too lost to partisanship and delusion to be worth talking to, only ridicule is warranted for such in my books.
Steve V is correct, this is a war, one started by Harper and his supporters and backers many years ago. His actions both before becoming PM and after show this to be true, what has bothered me is how long it has taken so many to recognize this rather obvious fact. I have been saying so for years, it is not like Harper ever hide what his true ambitions were from the late 80s until he lost in 2004 and then suddenly realized he could never win being open about his true goals. This is a culture war Harper started, embraced, and has been waging against this nation for years both in opposition and as PM, and that needs to be dealt with in the only proper manner, by defeating him and his soulmates and never allowing this kind of divisiveness to become acceptable in our political discourse ever again. We have NEVER had as dysfunctional a Parliament and government as we have had under Harper, nor have we had as many dangerous new precedents for abuse of power either. This new channel is only the latest front in a long running war against the majority of Canadians and their beliefs.
"I am fine with someone setting up such a station so long as carrying it is not mandatory."
Ditto. Love to see it go bankrupt :)
Scotian, you are right on the money.
If you ask me this neo-conservative right wing tea party type is just a westernized version of the Taliban, same extreme drive to get rid of anyone who opposes them. The only difference between right wing extremist and the Taliban extremist is that one uses violence to enforce their beliefs and the other uses money to perpetuate their own goals. I had always thought that our media and more specifically our news was there to inform us to what was going on and educate us as to why it was happening. I think it’s a sad day when our news agencies objectives are to influence our perception of that news in order to enable their own beliefs and agendas. The only time I watch “Fox News” is when one of there clips ends up on a real news program usually because of some outlandish statement or comment made by them, or when a comic uses a clip to laugh at them. The world doesn’t need anymore of this crap, not now and not ever!
Tof KW said...
Are you referring to Frank Graves of EKOS who has received $12 million in federal government contracts, including two with the prime minister's department, the Privy Council Office, worth $131,440...
FROM THE HARPER GOVERNMENT
Really? Even if this is true (and from past experience, I can't just assume that you're telling the truth, sorry...), I'm fascinated by your reasoning here. So, because EKOS accepted money from the Conservatives, that proves that he's not a Liberal? Seriously? That's your argument?
If anything, that proves Stephen Harper to be much more magnanimous that you or anyone else here are willing to give him credit for; it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Frank Graves except that he likes money.
(not quite what you were going for, huh?)
Oh ya, he donated to the Conservative Party of Canada too (admittedly also to the Liberals, to show his impartiality).
Umm, yeah...450 dollars to the Conservatives, 11 THOUSAND dollars to the Liberals, wasn't it?
As Steve said; the stupid - it burns!
Yes. You, in this case...
Steve V said...
"CBC has been doing the liberal dirty work for years"
Yes, just watching Tom Flanagan on CBC right now. The stupid, it BURNS.
One or two token conservatives doesn't make the CBC unbiased any more than a token liberal makes Fox News unbiased.
(unless you believe the Fox News
claims about being "fair and balanced"? No, I didn't think so...)
Besides, they only started making an effort to appear unbiased fairly recently (probably when they realized that the Conservatives will be in government for a long time). Before that, CBC didn't even bother trying to appear as anything other than Liberal cheerleaders. And I say that as someone who has seen the inner workings of the CBC up close...have you?
Tof KW said...
If they want to start one fine, so long as a completely biased anti-FOX News is created alongside it (in other words Canada's answer to MSNBC) to call them on their bullshit.
And who exactly gets to decide which one speaks the truth and which one is "bullshit"? You?
And neither of them had better be placed on my basic cable package.
Funny how I am forced to pay for the CBC even if I don't own a TV.
...then this should be fully paid for by those who specifically wish to subscribe. Let market forces decide its fate.
The CBC as well? Okay, you've got my vote...where do I sign?
Big Winnie said...
I do not want to become more "americanized" by having a Con channel:
So what exactly are you afraid of? That people will be "converted" to the Conservative viewpoint?
The amount of sheer spite, vindictiveness and borderline hatred I'm seeing on Liberal/NDP blogs over this issue is beginning to verge on hysteria.
Seriously, I am concerned because media is supposed to be unbiased
WHAT??
You're kidding, right? Of course you are. You have to be.
Steve V said...
Since you're so smart, I guess you read the McGill review, wherein they found a Conservative bias in both the 2004 and 2006 election, including disporportionate negative stories about the Liberals from, wait for it, The Toronto Star.
Well, with all due respect, even the Red Star (aka: the official Voice of the Liberal Party) couldn't find anything praiseworthy in the Liberal leadership. They still don't, in fact. And this is NOT because they like Stephen Harper...far from it.
I'm sorry, Steve...but your party is in pretty bad shape right now as far as leadership goes. That's not a 'dig', it's just a fact (and as I've said before , it doesn't make me happy)...
"And I say that as someone who has seen the inner workings of the CBC up close...have you?"
That is the biggest load, I vividly recall the CBC leading the charge on sponsorship. Such a joke really. You obviously don't know the inner workings of jack shit.
BTW, CBC just had Kory on to discuss the network with Don Newman. That fact right there, proves fair and balanced, which is ironic because Kory would never do likewise.
Enjoy your tinhat, you and the rest of the low rent BT's can do the "blame the media" circle jerk until eternity, never makes it true, just says lots of ignorance in this country. Reaffirmation, a beautiful thing. ZZZZZ.
Frankly: Taliban are also extreme right wing nutjobs. They are conservative (hyper-conservative) religious zealots. They too - like American Cons tend to follow more "break-away" sects of the mainstream religious movements to which they belong... The parallels are amazing...
Man oh man, I'm gone for a day and Dead-Head Fred shows up to spread his butt-cheeks and dump hot steaming turds all over this thread.
First off, I shouldn't even bother to reply since Fred is most likely a Fed...
Bureaucrats monitor online forums
But on this I must reply...
"And who exactly gets to decide which one speaks the truth and which one is "bullshit"? You?"
Way to twist my words around nimrod - where exactly did I appoint myself as the CRTC sensor?
Obviously your too head is too far up Harper’s ass to understand my point. If a 24-7 Harper-Cheerleading News Network is allowed on basic cable from coast to coast, then the CRTC must also allow a fully biased anti-Reformatory channel when it applies; much like how MSNBC counters FOXnews down in the States. One form of propaganda for another; welcome to the new hyper-polarized state which KoryVisionTV will eventually lead us to.
Don Newman was alluding to exactly this point yesterday on CBC’s P&P in his debate with Kory. What dies in the process is what is left of real journalism in this country. Greg Weston is a great example. He should be your idol for all the Liberals he’s skewed over the years over at Sun Media, but instead he’s in Kory’s doghouse now for unearthing the G8-G20 spending boondoggle. How dare he do his job and uncover the rape of the taxpayer’s wallets …he’s only allowed to investigate Liberal dirt.
Mr Newman also made the point to Kory that he shouldn’t be surprised in the future when ‘the base’ begins to rise up and demand things of the Conservative Party of Canada which it really shouldn’t if it wishes to remain electable. Again look at the Teabaggers in the States and how they are dumping Republican heros like McCain (hell, an All-American hero who would have been a solid President, minus Palin of course – though much better circa 2000 vs Gore) because FOXNews has declared him too ‘liberal’. McCain a liberal …WTF???
And about the CBC being Lib-biased and you being forced to pay for it… now matter how much you say something that doesn’t make it true. PROVE that the CBC is Liberal-Biased!!! How exactly??? Any good examples??? They were always favourable to Trudeau, Turner, Chrétien and Martin when they were in power &/or in opposition???
Yesterday’s Power & Politics show was the perfect example to show how wrong you are Fred. It is balanced and shows all sides of an argument. Just because they are critical of the government of the day does not mean it’s biased, it means journalists are doing their jobs. As long as they show the same criticism of the opposition (and they do, just ask Iggy) then they are neutral. KoryVision will not be …which makes it all bullshit.
PS – about ‘paying’ for the CBC, I resent my taxes going to support such things as the Western Report, Western Standard and lately the National Post …but we don’t get to cherry-pick these things Fred.
Tof KW said...
But on this I must reply...
"And who exactly gets to decide which one speaks the truth and which one is "bullshit"? You?"
Way to twist my words around nimrod - where exactly did I appoint myself as the CRTC sensor?
Obviously your too head is too far up Harper’s ass to understand my point.
(wow...hook, line and sinker...)
Your point came through just fine. It was of course laughable (as most of them are), but here it is again:
If they want to start one fine, so long as a completely biased anti-FOX News is created alongside it (in other words Canada's answer to MSNBC) to call them on their bullshit.
Now let me explain your comment (since you obviously can't): what you said was that the new network, BEFORE YOU HAVE EVEN SEEN IT, will be spreading "bullshit". I merely pointed out how stupid your comment was.
(oh, and I have as much respect for Don Newman's opinion as you have for Kory Teneycke's. The difference is, Kory mops the floor with old Don...;)
Steve V said...
"And I say that as someone who has seen the inner workings of the CBC up close...have you?"
That is the biggest load, I vividly recall the CBC leading the charge on sponsorship.
And I don't. I remember them covering the story, sure...but what choice did they have? How was their coverage any better than any other network?
Such a joke really. You obviously don't know the inner workings of jack shit.
Wrong. I spent almost a year working in the CBC Vancouver building on two different occasions, so I got to know a lot of people and overheard a lot of conversations. Never seen so many 50+ year old men wearing shorts, sandals and ponytails in my life...and hopefully never will again...
Tof KW said...
Man oh man, I'm gone for a day and Dead-Head Fred shows up to spread his butt-cheeks and dump hot steaming turds all over this thread.
Oh, lovely. You kiss your mother with that mouth?
Not my fault that your ability to 'reason' gives us such gems as "Frank Graves can't be biased against Conservatives because he took money from them", is it? In the future, try doing what I do: engage your brain BEFORE putting your mouth in motion...
Post a Comment