BS: Wild Canadian Politics

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:01 PM

There is no talk of replacing the Prime Minister.
Embarrassed pollsters have had to admit that the Conservatives are now into majority territory in public opinion polls.
Like it or not, he stared down three opposition leaders and defeated them at a game of parliamentary politics.
Just as you don't like the way he won, the majority of Canadians 72 versus 28% did not like what was being done by the opposition.
Now on the bright side. It is still a minority government and one day the opposition will force another election. Then you can have as much fun with it as you did the last one.
But for now Canadians have the party they voted for.
As for Quebec? Being nice to them got him nowhere.
Maybe a kick in the arse is what they need.
They park their vote with a Separatist party but do not want separation then get all ticked off when anyone outside of Quebec talks about it?
Give me a break.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:15 PM

WEll, if Harper and Co are really as terrible at leading the country as the opposition makes out, here's a suggestion for them. Start thinking more like the Americans! Specifically, why not follow Bill Clinton's lead and catch 'em with their pants down?

Simple! First, Layton and Dion could plant a video cam linked directly to Peter Mansbridge' desk, in Harper's office. (In the best interests of Canada, of course)

Then, Duceppe could pay some lovely young Madamoiselle Quebecois to sashay round the PM's desk offering the finest of, um, personal attentions, to help him relax and recover from all the horrid stress of the last few months. (In the best interests of Quebec, of course)

And THEN, before you could even say pass the puck, eh? .... whoo-hoooo! Problem solved!!!

:-) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:27 PM

Jim... "Like it or not, he stared down three opposition leaders and defeated them at a game of parliamentary politics."

Are you referring to the last election or the prorouge?

No... not a typo... hehehehehe.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM

daylia... "...are really as terrible..."

Let us not lose sight of what Stevie One has done and tried to do since the last election. Seriously, ya can't keep poking the dragon without getting burned.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:35 PM

Nothing can be done until we here from our cousins to the south. Somebody has to go first and they are not likely to follow our lead. Any stimulus that the U.S. puts into the economy will only be enhanced by our own, not the other way around. We are each others biggest trading partners. The few drops we'll contribute to the bucket, as opposed to them, will be all for not if it's not in line with what the U.S. is going to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM

Harper defeated no on in a game of parliamentary politics, if anything he has cut his own throat. He is a nasty, vindictive, spiteful man who has made it all about himself, not politics, by trying to weaken the other parties by cutting off their public funding. This had nothing to do with the economy as the amount in question is piddling in the context of the federal budget. What it is about is him trying to get the majority, that he so lusts after, by financially crippling the other parties who are much more dependent on the public funding than the Cons whose coffers are overflowing.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:04 PM

"But for now Canadians have the party they voted for."

Wrong! The hell they do. ;-) They have the party that 37% of the eligible voters who actually went out and voted, voted for.

It is the peculiar nature of our first-past-the-post multi-party electoral system that allows 37% of the voters in a country to imagine that they are "a majority" or that the people they voted for represent one, JimLad. Such hubris! Or is it just the self-serving logic of convenience?

I would be in favor of a system that works on proportional representation...and furthermore, that requires at least a 2/3 vote of support in parliament to pass any piece of legislation. That would be much more honestly reflective of the will of the people than the system we have in place now...and it would require the parties to have some more respect for each other and make them willing to show some more cooperation and compromise than they are presently inclined to.

As soon as any one party gets a parliamentary majority in our present system, you have a parliamentary dictatorship until the next election. That's not good, regardless of whether it's the Conservatives or the Liberals who get to exercise it.

The necessity of a 2/3 vote to approve legislation would go a long way toward preventing that sort of dictatorial arrogance on the part of the governing party. Anything that cannot get the support of 2/3 of the people is probably not such a good idea anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:19 PM

Seeing as how the Liberals and NDP received over 44% of the vote combined it can be said that a government formed by them joining in a coalition is more representative of the will of the voters. Remember that in our system we vote for individuals, not parties, who select a leader who they feel will be able to govern with the confidence of the majority in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:29 PM

Correct, but even 44% of the national vote does not in any way justify imagining that one thereby represents a majority viewpoint. And that is why I am proposing a system that requires a 2/3 vote in parliament to pass ANY legislation. And if they can't come up with anything that satisfies 2/3 of the parliament???? Too bad! Go back to the negotiating table and try again till you get it right.

This business of ramming stuff through parliament with a bare majority of votes by people who didn't EVEN manage to secure a bare majority of public support nationwide stinks to high heaven.

The fact is, not one of the federal parties can truly claim to represent the majority of the Canadian public. Not one of them. They have all fallen way short in that respect. Therefore...there is no one of them which has the moral authority or the right to be itself alone empowered to run the country.

This is why I'm suggesting that only a 2/3 vote in parliament carries that sort of authority, and that requires a coalition...or it requires totally free and unecumbered nonpartisan voting by MPs, regardless of their party affiliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Hrothgar
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 04:59 PM

In Australia there are basically two political movements - Labor and the conservative coalitions. Both are conservative, but let's leave that out of it for the moment.

The Australian Labor Party, as their name indicates, tends towards the left. The party itself was actually founded after the industrial struggles of the 1890s (the world's first Labor government was in Queensland in the 1890s - it lasted a week).

The coalition is made up of the Liberal Party of Australia, which is generally regarded as sympathetic to big businees, and the National Party, which started out in life as the Country Prty representing farming, grazing, and other rural interests (Yanks, compare it with the Grange parties of the late 19th and early 20th centuries). Effectively, the Liberals have a large majority of coalition seats, but occasionally the National tail does get to wag the Liberal dog.

Labor have a long-held policy of never entering into coalition, but their resolve has never been tested on this point. If it came down to a choice of being in Opposition or being in power with the support of one of the fringe parties, I hope they would be pragmatic.

The constitutional crisis in Australia that bears comparison with the Canadian situation occurred in 1975, when the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labor government under Gough Whitlam. The point was that at the time, Labor could command a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Parliament), but had crucial Budget legislation blocked in the Senate (the upper house) where it did not have a majority.

Instead of observing the constitutional convention of taking the advice of the party that could command the confidence of the lower house, Kerr dismissed Whitlam and appointed Malcolm Fraser, leader of the Liberal Party, as caretaker Prime Minister pending a general election.

This is a very brief resume of the events of 1975 - there have been several books written and television series made about it, and it will keep being churned up for a slong as anyone can foresee.

The great difference in Canada (as far as I can see) is that the Governor-General there seems to be prepared to go along with whoever has the confidence of the lower house.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

3refs, WHAT national identity? The one we borrowed from Britain? Multiculturalism IS our national identity.

Somebody needs to tell Stephen Harper that he isn't President. He is Prime Minister with no real executive power, certainly none to shut down the government—which is what shutting down Parliament has done. He went whining to Momma because things weren't going his way. As leader of the party that holds a minority government, why was he having a secret meeting with the Governor General to decide to shitcan for 2 months the government WE elected?

He took a stupid partisan gamble that he could get a Non-Con vote and blame the fact we were having another election on the opposition. It didn't work. The opposition parties were deciding on another perfectly legal option. It was blowing up in Harper the Sharper's face so what does he do. He padlocks up the company shithouse and goes home (not the first time he's done that). All of this at a time when we can ill afford such uncertainty from our so-called government.

Terrible PM. Maybe he'd make a better dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 06:04 PM

The US have no concept of a constitutional monarchy so the importance of the two key issues here are lost on them.

By constitutional convention if Harper had lost a vote of confidence (or equivalent) he would have been obliged to resign as prime minister.   That bit most people seem to have got.

The sovereign (in the case of Canada, by her proxy the Governor General) in exercise of a residual power would then have appointed the next prime minister. Probably the most followed view amongst constitutional lawyers is that that should be the person best able to form a government, ie the person best able to command a parliamentary majority. Whether that should be the next leader of a fallen minority government party (ie another Conservative in place of Harper) or the person designated by a larger coalition is an issue the jury is out on but IMHO the better view favours the latter. This (or a closely related subject) has been a live issue in England twice and there is still no definite answer.

The really exciting point is the prorogation. Technically the Queen prorogues parliament, and does so on the advice of her prime minister - but it is very open to argument whether that should be what happens when the sole real purpose is to avoid a vote of confidence. Since Prime ministers may call general elections (again theoretically by so advising the crown) at times to suit themselves, I suspect that there is yet no convention that prorogation cannot be effected for party political purposes. But I might be wrong on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

You are right there Richard, a new and, according to some constitutional experts, dangerous precedent is being established by using the prorogation procedure to avoid a vote of non-confidence. Non-confidence motions could become moot in the future by this precedent. This is the kind of tactic employed by despots in third world countries, holding on to power by shutting down government.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: The Lorax
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 08:28 PM

As a friend of mine, who studies African politics, put it:

"Imagine what would have happened if an African leader had tried putting the government on hold to stave off a vote of non-confidence..."

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:15 PM

I think new rules may come into form preventing prorogation being used to avoid a vote of confidence, as a result of this clusterfuck. They will likely be tabled by Stephen Harper, once he's used this situation to his advantage. He won't want somebody else doing the same thing to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:20 PM

Right, just like the fixed election date law he passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:21 PM

Yep. Apparently not worth the sound of the wind sucking into his arsehole as he proposed it.

I sure hope we don't end up with some sort of Lord High Protector after all the dust has settled.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:42 PM

Hrothgar: Well told. There are a few differences mind you and a few similarities. John Kerr took it upon himself to replace Gough Whitlam and had also consulted with Malcolm Fraser before doing so. In other words, he just took it upon himself, invited the Prime Minister over, fired him and invited Mr. Fraser to form the government. Unknown to Mr. Whitlam, Mr. Fraser was actually sitting in the next room when he was let go.
The Governor General is not permitted to seek council with the opposition but may only accept advice from the first minister.
The liberals hold the majority in the Canadian senate also. They do stall as many bills as they possibly can but Mr. Harper rattles their cages every once in a while, threatens to put the dissolution of the senate to a referendum and they get back to work. There are 18 vacancies in the Senate and Mr. Harper hasn't seen fit to filling them. It his stated intention to fill those seats with elected senators rather than appointments but he can't do that with a minority government. I'm sure even the Harper bashers here would approve of that move.
Public opinion basically followed peoples political leanings and there was no public outcry of any consequence.
Sir John Kerr resigned within a year, was given a foreign Ambassadorship in some other country (China or Singapore, Can't remember now) and basically plunged into the depths of alcoholism.
Loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen was also a passion for some in Australia at that time though certainly not for all. That's not even on the agenda in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:09 PM

Anyone remember Mulroney stacking the senate with new appointments so he could pass the GST.

This and the latest debacle concerning Harper are surely moments of shame in Canadian politiks.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 12:06 AM

No!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:16 AM

Was that an emphatic reaction to the previous post? Or did the roof just fall in on you or something like that? JimLad? You okay?   Jimlad?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 03:17 AM

I'm fine.
It was an answer to the question "Anyone remember?".
It may have happened that way but I honestly don't remember.
Was busy raising kids then. Still am but I'm not paying them as much attention as I should.
I think actually that Stephen Harper is the first one not to try and stack the senate.
He'd much rather scuttle it.
For the benefit of those from the UK, the senate is modelled after the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 04:43 AM

Well, the Canadian senate is in some respects modelled on the UK House of Lords. Membership however is structured on a regional basis and is intended to provide some sorts of checks and balances between central governmen and the provinces.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:03 AM

18 senate vacancies... do I get free parking?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:52 AM

No Gnu. You get a driver.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 08:35 AM

and possibly a putter.... for those long vacations in Mexico

---

that was me.... thinking about the boneyard percs of party loyalty

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 08:55 AM

Cluin
"3refs, WHAT national identity? The one we borrowed from Britain? Multiculturalism IS our national identity".

I'll be gettin back to you on this one!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 09:28 AM

What Canada Is!

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:11 PM

Would you buy a used car from any of the 5 National leaders? I would not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:29 PM

Actually, there once was a traditional Canadian culture. I remember it very well from the early days of my childhood. It was divided, however, into 2 very separate parts. There was the French part in Quebec and various other regions where there are large number of French speakers....I wasn't familiar with that part at all, because I didn't belong to it. Then there was the English/Scottish/Irish part which took up most of the rest of the country, and that part I was familiar with, because I did belong to it. Both parts had a distinctly Canadian feel that could not be mistaken for anything else. One was "Canadian", the other was "Canadien". These two aspects of the traditional Canadian culture were ably represented in sport by the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Montreal Canadiens, the eternal rivals. You had to love either one or the other.

Well, there ain't much left of that culture now. It has been watered down, fragmented, and overwhelmed by a flood of American media and American money and "multiculturalism" and "free trade".

The Canada of today is a pale remnant of the very strong Canadian identity of my childhood, and it barely knows what it is anymore at all...except for the French part. They have been protected by virtue of not speaking the same language as Americans, thus have maintained their cultural identity quite well. This gives them a certain strength which is quite evident in how effectively they play the political game in Canada.

And there you have it. "So, take off, eh!"

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:37 PM

The maritime region still has it's culture L.H. ... but then again it has and still is quite distanced from the west and Upper Canada.

hell ... saw and heard a school choir singing Christmas carols at the mall today. I noticed some kids in the choir from various other ethnic groups.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: black walnut
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 01:59 PM

Did anybody else catch the very last (minus New Year's Eve) show of the ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FARCE last night? It was hysterical! They couldn't have asked for better political goingsons to work with.

~b.w.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 02:03 PM

I bet! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 02:39 PM

LH... Tronna? Not in The Maritimes. Down here, it was, and is, Boston and Montréal. Now, if Tronna an' Boston were in the cup, it MIGHT be 50/50 for Tronna.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 03:10 PM

Little Hawk;
            I don't know why it is that I'm so surprised when you make sense. I think maybe you wind us up for a while but can't resist the temptation of dropping the odd gem of real wisdom here and there.
Your last piece was excellent and I do agree with what the others have said about the Maritimes.
Maybe we're getting a little older and moving closer to the big centres or maybe it's the same illusion that fools us into believing that the snow was always deeper and summers never ended. School really was uphill for me both ways and I did actually stub my toe on the top of a telegraph pole. I don't live in the interior any more and if I did, I'd be inside looking out at the snow thereby not participating in the various activities that still are a part of your identity.
I'll be making maple syrup again this year. The prairie farmers will still be opening up the fences for snowmobiles and cross country skiers. There will be a folk night in the local hall (A wood cabin) with its pot bellied stove and spicy hot something in a cup. And some old guy will most certainly stumble out of the woods, drunk as a lord on Christmas Eve just to sleep through Midnight Mass.
Things are changing but as long as you're alive there will be at least one crusty old Canadian holding the fort.
Grin!
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 04:17 PM

I also agree with what Jim said about Little Hawk's last post, which was absolutely right.   There really was an AngloCanadian culture, and it was really different from the United States or Britain. The only problem with it was that, apart from the good bits -- e.g. the subdued patriotism, the manners, the whole ethos of it -- it was pretty dreadful psychologically.   The people who lived in it were terribly messed up by the aridity of it.   You only have to read Alice Munro's early short stories to get a feel for its legacy.   I have struggled all my life with deciding whether I miss it or not, and, really, in the end, I don't. I think the infusion of all the other cultures in the world into places like Toronto was the best thing that ever happened -- but multiculturalism (as has been noted) doesn't really give you that core set of beliefs that make up a culture. So we do now live in an Americanized no-man's land.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 06 Dec 08 - 05:18 PM

Really? Done and gone? Except in Québec? Maybe we will separate with, or without, Québec. After all, we are Canadian. I am beginning to wonder about the rest of youse.

Nahhh.... just shittin.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 12:12 PM

I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 02:54 PM

I really miss it, I can tell you. Peter is right that it had a sort of arid, overly sober quality to it (absolutely NOTHING was open on Sunday...), and good restaurants with a variety of foreign cuisine were damned hard to find, unlike today, but in other ways it was just wonderful...because you knew what it was to be Canadian, by God!

My family moved from Southern Ontario to the USA in 1958, when Canada was still undeniably Canada. I came back in 1969. The difference was already very evident, and I have watched the Canada that I knew as a child disappear before my eyes ever since. I love this country, but I can't make out what it has become in the last 5 decades.

I sort of envy the French Canadians, in a way, because their language has allowed them to preserve the vibrancy of their culture. I find them to be very expressive people with a tremendous sense of romance. I get the feeling they have more fun than the English Canadians. ;-) Of course, they always did, didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Peter T.
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:08 PM

I once asked my mother, who was British, and who married my father during the war, and came to Canada in 1943, what was the biggest change she had seen in Canada during her lifetime, and she said, "When I was a girl, Canadians were the most glamorous people, they gave off this aura of having the world by the tail, they were rough but you felt they knew exactly who they were and where they were going, they had a kind of exuberant happiness. The future was theirs. And somehow it all went away...."

I just about broke out into tears when she said that.

yours ever,

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:14 PM

Good lord, Peter.

I think I must have been sensing the dying echos of that before we moved down to the USA in '58. I know there was something very special in Canada back then, I could feel it. I had a quiet pride in my country then that was profound, as deep as the deepest religious faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM

Hey guys .... "because you knew what it was to be Canadian, by God!"

I don't know about you but I feel damned lucky and fortunate to live in this country .... Hell I feel Canadian ... and so does my neighbour who happens to be a Syrian immigrant who received his medical degree in the U.S. .... Like me he loves Canada, he loves the Maritimes and he loves Saint John .... we're Canadian eh.


biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 04:59 PM

I feel very glad to be here too, Number 6, and most likely for the same reasons.

Still, I do remember a time when the country had a far stronger Canadian cultural identity than it does now, that's all. I can't help it that things have changed, and it doesn't mean I don't still love the country now, because I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:17 PM

I don't recognize the Canada of two traditional cultures of which you speak. I guess it depends on where you grew up. My Canada was represented by many cultures. My neighbourhood included Poles, Ukranians, Italians, Germans, French Canadians and even a few Anglos of British origin. My schoolmates were even more diverse in their countries of origin and included First Nation people. Most of these people were first generation immigrants who maintained many aspects of their native cultures as well as adopting the cultural practices of their chosen country. I consider myself truly fortunate to have lived among this diversity of cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:26 PM

Yes, it depends where you grew up...and the influence of your family...and various other factors like that. I was well aware that there were a variety of other cultures present in Canada as well, but the two predominant ones in the public arena seemed to be the "English-Canadian" and the "French-Canadian", and they were what appeared to drive the political dialogue as well in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

It was expressed by the well-known term "Two Solitudes".

The fact that this left out the Native Canadians, Poles, Ukrainians, etc...was not indicative of anything else other than that the primary attention of the country was on the great French-English divide which has engaged the minds of Canadians ever since the French and Indian War in the 1700s.

(Native Canadians played a big part in that one, fighting for both sides. The Hurons and various others lost out badly when the French were finally defeated.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: GUEST,Number 6
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 05:40 PM

I have a hard time trying to understand what cultural identity is ... then again maybe it's just me.

Maybe that is what, and has been rather special about Canada ... we just never really got hung up about 'cultural identity', that seems to be something created in the last 15 years or so ... we just knew we had a common bond in that we are Canadian and we never really thought what that was or is ... albeit all of us natives and descendents of and immigrants from Ireland, Latvia, Scotland, England, germany, Poland, Ukraine, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, black, white Asian ... and on and on.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: gnu
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 07:18 PM

I KNOW this is just one more a them there emails, but, what the heck... even tho it has nuthun ta do with the thread topic, it kind

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:03 PM

Uh-oh. I think "they" got gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:15 PM

The probes are being inserted - he won't remember a thing when he wakes up.

Subject: RE: BS: Wild Canadian Politics
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Dec 08 - 08:24 PM

Ah Gnu!
Have one for me son.






Note to self. "Don't drink and ......"
(Fill in the blank)