Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Yay for the stock market rally! | Main | Mark Carney needs to shut the hell up and raise rates »

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Wild Rose Alliance slams prostitution decision

To all those libertarians -- of which there are many and you know who you are -- who pointed to Danielle Smith and the Wild Rose Alliance party as a perfect example of how libertarian and socially conservative bible thumpers can find peace with each other and live forever in holy matrimony, I now escalate my skepticism of these miraculous socons and submit Exhibit A for the court's consideration:


Wildrose Statement On Ontario Court Prostitution Ruling

Today, Wildrose Solicitor General and Public Safety Critic Heather Forsyth and Justice and Attorney General Critic Rob Anderson issued the following joint statement in regard to yesterday’s Ontario court decision striking down three federal prostitution laws:

“No little girl ever dreams of growing up and becoming a prostitute and no parent wants to see their child become a sex worker. Girls become prostitutes because they are coerced, degraded, and give up hope for their futures. Instead of making it easier and safer for young girls to sell their bodies, our government should be focused on stopping those who seek to victimize women, and ensure all our children receive the education they need to be successful in their lives. The Wildrose Caucus supports the federal government in seeking an appeal to this decision.”

The Wildrose Alliance Caucus advances competent, principled and conservative policies that will limit government spending growth, increase economic opportunities, empower communities and strengthen individual liberties and freedom.


As I predicted, the libertarians must compromise. As always. And my own thesis, that libertarians and socons can never get along is further strengthened.

Danielle Smith can take her Leave it to Beaver Capitalism and have it.

Posted by Mike Brock on September 29, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Useless tools.

Don't even get me started on the contradiction between their position on the ruling and their commitment to "advancing individual liberties and freedom."

Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-29 8:52:50 PM


Female leader, female SolGen/Public Safety critic.

Danielle Smith is not known to be religious, is very pro-abortion, and is listed as a Canadian Libertarian at Wikipedia and elsewhere, see http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-news-in-national/canadians-pick-libertarian-to-head-alberta-political-party for example.

Heather Forsyth was described by the Western Standard as anti-freedom and anti-family here: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/01/anti-family-anti-freedom-heather-forsyth-is-a-bad-fit-for-the-new-wildrose-alliance.html. She is no social conservative either.

This is soccer mom-ism at best and good ol' feminism at worst, not social conservatism. Women just aren't really capable of libertarianism; this has to have occurred to you by now.

Posted by: Mobley | 2010-09-29 9:27:19 PM


I predicted this a while ago, that as the Alliance gets closer to power it will dispense with anything libertarian it needs to to get there. Not a disappointment when one considers the seriousness of their alleged libertarian bona fides hiding behind another party named "Alliance". They never advertised themselves as libertarian, as that is the next best thing to a political death sentence in Canada.

Mobley: As to your ridiculous assertion that women aren't really capable of libertarianism, I would direct you to Karen Selick, probably the most articulate libertarian spokesperson to ever grace the pages of the defunct WS magazine.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-09-29 11:12:19 PM


Caligula legalized prostitution and taxed it.

Must have been a libertarian.

Posted by: set you free | 2010-09-30 7:55:47 AM


You imply that there haven't been issues within the party where the more social conservatives have had to give a little to the libertarians. I know this first-hand to be completely false. As part of the so-called 'libertarian side' of the WAP, I have seen many examples of give and take on the part of both groups of the alliance. I believe you are looking for something that just isn't there. To see an actual party divided, may I suggest the Progressive Conservatives?

Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2010-09-30 8:06:44 AM


I feel sick about this. I really thought Danielle would be different. Heather Forsyth is a cancer on this party.

A court decision is the perfect cover on issues like this. Why would they do this?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2010-09-30 10:37:48 AM


Matthew,

To gain and hold onto political power. What else do you expect from politicians?

Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-30 10:44:39 AM


It just comes down to my theory that liberty is a mindset. For socons who claim they respect liberty, because it gives them freedom from government to be socially conservative -- this sounds good in theory.

In reality, when people feel a certain way in their heart, and when there's enough with like mind... they will always reach for the hammer of the state.

If you think abortion is immoral, same sex marriage is immoral, and prostitution is immoral. If you think in your heart, that there is nothing redeeming about these things, and if you feel you have the power of the voter behind you: your "libertarian" values will melt away like butter in a frying pan.

The socon / libertarian value duality is a myth. Libertarianism is a political tactic for socons that seems expedient in an age where left-wing social engineers are running rampant.

But once those left-wing social engineers are vanquished, it's very easy to forget about the whole libertarian thing and install your own social engineers.

To me, that's all libertarian social conservatives are: wolves in sheep's clothing. Plain and simple. Full stop. History bears it out, over and over again.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 10:51:31 AM


I'll go out an say it: secular, humanist values is the only value system that is unthreatening to the libertarian politic. Because liberty is about individuals. Not gods, religion, myth, or tradition.

Secular humanist culture is about individuals, too.

Social conservative libertarianism is an attempt to mix individualist politics with collectivist cultural values. And it doesn't work.

I don't have to mix anything. I have libertarian political values, and liberal cultural values. They go hand in hand, and are not at odds with each other. There's nothing to balance. They are complimentary and one.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 10:55:50 AM


The SoCons have had to compromise on abortion and gay marriage. It's not like only one side ever has to make compromises.

Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-09-30 10:57:48 AM


Anonymouse,

I'm sorry if I don't see how "compromising" over someone else's rights should be a palatable option.

I do not assert my will over any other human being. I simply ask they do not do the same to me.

To ask me to compromise this position, and allow social conservatives to hold sway over the agency of women, their bodies, and their right to dispose of themselves within the scope of their own agency, is not "compromise".

It's social conservatives asking us to allow the government to be used as a cultural enforcement tool. Which is exactly what socons complain about the left doing.

It's amusing that socons complain about "liberals" engaging in social engineering -- and they do -- but then socons turn around and want to do the same thing.

They want their ancient myths taught alongside modern science in school.

They want a right to claim dominion over women's bodies, in accordance with their religiously-informed beliefs.

They want a right to claim exclusivity over cultural practices -- codified in law -- by excluding gays and lesbians from enjoying the same rights and privileges of opposite sex partners.

Socons are the penultimate social engineers. And they wear it on their sleeve.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 11:07:52 AM


The so-cons did not compromise on gay marriage and abortion.

In both cases, the courts have gotten involved, against heavy, continuous resistance from social conservatives. Judging by their rhetoric, that resistance is still there.

They compromised only in the sense that they haven't managed to alter the Charter yet -- which is highly unlikely anyway.

Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-30 11:24:44 AM


Good point Terrence.

Any socon saying "we've compromised on abortion" is full of shit. They didn't compromise. The highest court in the land struck down the law, and I doubt many socons would stand up and speak praise of the Morgantaler decision.

No, they'd say what they'd always say: that the Supreme Court is an "activist court" that is stepping on their right to impose their will on others.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 11:36:19 AM


Im so disappointed with Wildrose party, i felt they were the last hope for liberty anywhere in this country.
To vote in the next federal election our choices are tyrant A B C or D

Posted by: don b | 2010-09-30 11:49:04 AM



Here is the comment that I just submitted through the Party's website:


Good Day,
I am writing to ask the party to reverse it's inconsistent and irresponsible position on the Ontario Court Prostitution Ruling.

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot claim to want to "strengthen individual liberties and freedom" while opposing this ruling.

My membership in the party has recently lapsed, and my conscience will not allow me to renew unless the Party lives up to the principles that drew me to it in the first place. I will not renew my membership until this position is reversed.

In Liberty,
Paul R. Welke
Edmonton, AB

Posted by: Paul R. Welke | 2010-09-30 11:51:48 AM


Paul,

Thanks for that. It's time, as I've been saying for a while, for libertarians across the country to withdraw our support for conservative parties across this country.

Even though we are a small minority in the movement, we played a big roll in the media, within the party establishment and on the ground shilling for conservatives over the past decade. What have we gotten for this?

Insults by the prime minister, who used to identify with classical liberalism. A complete abandonment of fiscal responsibility. More regulation. Bigger government. More military spending. Intensification of the drug war.

Oh, and some token tax cuts. At the expense of the biggest deficit in history, mind you.

No. I call on libertarians from all over to withdraw their support and do their damnedest to sabotage the conservative movement by playing to it's hypocrisies on economic issues, in particular.

Disrupt!

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 12:11:18 PM


Great! So,when Wildrose chooses not to run as a pro-life party, we get all the libertarians telling the social conservatives to shut up and accept it. We are told that the party is still in the best interest of social conservatives even though on families and the life of the unborn it doesn't give a crap! Yet, Wildrose does one statement which the libertarians don't like and its abandon the party. Spoiled brats! Its the typical line! Social conservatives are allowed at the party but we don't get to make any of the party policy. We get to be acceptable as long as we sit in the back of the bus. Whats next, the libertarians give us seperate water fountains too? For Wildrose to succeed it must be a coalition of both social conservatives and libertarians. If we sit out on election day, the fact is you lose. Wildrose wins only by including both points of view! Also, look around. There is a worldwide right-wing movement arising in europe, america, and Australia. Right-wing parties are winning power on both economic and social issues. The people are starting to see that big government economic policies have failed. Also, we are starting to see social conservatives(pro-family, pro-life, tough on crime and illegal immigration) gaining significant power in these countries. The rise of Tony Abbott in Australia signifies the empowerment of a social conservative movement that has not seriously engaged the left in the public arena in the last 40 years. Look at Wilders in the Netherlands, the polling of the strongly pro-life Popular Party in Spain,the family friendly social policy pushed by Berlusconni's government(also cutting taxes, denationalizing the electric industry, and restarting the nuclear power industry). Look at the rise of nationalist and socially conservative Flemish parties as the real power brokers in Belgium. Look at Norway where the right-wing parties poll 20 points ahead(including such tough on crime socially conservative parties like the Progress Party) and where the socialist and hardcore left has been reduced to under 35%(the socialist have been unable on their own to break 40% for over the last decade. Look at the election results in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania where right-wing parties have massacred the opposition. There is even some signs that social conservatism may even be rising in the libertarian leaning Czech republic and Estonia. The socialist economic and anti-family social models have broken down. It has led people to unhappy, unfulfilled lives. It is only a question of time before this trend hits Canadians shores.

Posted by: Jocko | 2010-09-30 12:19:13 PM


Jacko,

I don't need your Biblical myths to fight socialism. Thanks.

I've got far more useful shit on my side. You know, like logical arguments, facts, and consistency.

Stuff like that.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 12:25:25 PM


"In reality, when people feel a certain way in their heart, and when there's enough with like mind... they will always reach for the hammer of the state."

I'm not following you here Mike. I truly feel, in my heart, that the married dude who goes to see a prostitute to get his rocks off and lies to and betrays his wife in the process is a bit more than an asshole. He's a repugnant, immoral asshole. But I would never, no matter how many people I feel support my moral position, be in favour of passing a law which renders it illegals for married men to see a prostitute. Nor would I ever advocate a law to punish adultery (no matter how immortal I feel it may be).

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-30 12:50:21 PM


Of course the SoCons have had to compromise on issues like gay marriage and abortion, and to suggest otherwise is pure fantasy.

The Conservative Party of Canada's policies and positions have been either to allow "free votes" that is knows will fail, or to promise to avoid the issues altogether.

These policies and positions are hardly supported by the SoCons, but they know that this is the best they're going to get if they have any interest in ongoing political success.

To suggest that it's "only" the Supreme Court that keeps these issues off the table is pure fantasy. It's also the conscious decision of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-09-30 12:50:47 PM


Anonymouse,

What I meant is that the so-cons never allowed their political parties to compromise on those issues, until the Supreme Court forced a resolution. If the Court hadn't acted, they never would have given in.

That's not compromise in any interesting sense. It's equivalent to waiting until you're utterly beaten, with no hope of victory, and only then holding out an olive branch to the other side. All while acknowledging to your supporters that at the slightest change in fortunes you're going to go back to fighting.

That's not a good faith effort to find a mutually agreeable compromise. It sounds kind of like Hamas, actually.

Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-30 1:03:38 PM


Since when do SoCons believe that they are utterly beaten with no hope of victory simply because the Supreme Court has made its rulings? That's a spurious suggestion to make.

The Conservative Party of Canada's current policy, AFTER the Supreme Court's rulings, is to allow "free votes" and/or to ignore controversial social issues.

Many (Most? All?) SoCons HATE this policy, and yet they stick with the Conservative Party of Canada because it's the best they've got. That's called compromise.

SoCons could VERY easily pack up their bags and leave the CPC en masse, if they were truly as intransigent as y'all suggest they are.

The suggestion that SoCons never have to compromise is pure fantasy, and very much causes me to question the seriousness of the contributors to this web site.

Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-09-30 1:13:25 PM


It's like saying the defendant in a lawsuit has compromised by paying the damages after the court has rendered judgement against him, then trying to use that as evidence of the reasonableness of their position.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 1:15:06 PM


Anonymouse,

If you could: would you invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter and override the Morgantellar decision?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 1:18:03 PM


Of course you know I think you're very wrong, Mike. There are culturally liberal statists and culturally conservative statists. It's how one views the individual's relationship with the state, and now one views the legal institutions that guarantee liberty, that makes one a libertarian. As for what culture is most conducive to lasting liberty, we’d had this debate before. You argue for a secular permission culture, and I argue for a conservative culture – we both argue against statism. I’m confident that in the marketplace of ideas, free from government interference, a dominate culture would emerge that best serves society, allowing for counter-culture movements to exist unmolested.

I don’t want to open this debate again, but I’ll add that there is nothing about prohibiting prostitution that is consistent with conservative values.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2010-09-30 1:23:26 PM


"I call on libertarians from all over to withdraw their support and do their damnedest to sabotage the conservative movement"

There ya go, at least you're being honest.

It's women in general and feminists in particular who support effectively prohibiting prostitution, and they are not social conservatives but rather social liberals.

Conservative support among heterosexual men is consistently around 45% vs. 30% for women, extrapolate the 60-40 female male split on the issue and it is dead even between CPC men and women in total numbers. McGuinty is against the ruling and Ignatieff, being a liberal and therefore dishonest, is sitting on the fence on this one:

"People who practise prostitution, they are citizens, and they have rights," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said. "But there's also the communities where prostitution happens and they too have rights."

http://thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2778763&

Why not sabotage the "Liberal" party instead? They don't support legalizing prostitution, and they're supposed to be the liberal ones; it's understandable if unfortunate that the Conservative party opposes the ruling, being comprised of conservatives and all, but the Liberals? They're not doing their job, why not criticize McGuinty or Ignatieff for once?

Oh, right, because you are a liberal and a Liberal pretending to be some sort of disgruntled Conservative, a faaaaaaaaaabulously flaming faux-con fragger.

Posted by: Mobley | 2010-09-30 1:33:07 PM


Matthew,

Secular statism is usually a stand-in for religion. Be in nation-worship, idol worship, or what have you. Marxism was just a godless religion, for instance.

Most statist secularism is tied up in the concept of national identity and collective purpose, which are shades of religiosity.

True liberal secularism is and should be opposed to these things, as well. And while I agree that liberalism has been co-opted for the ends you identify, this is a reclamation project. Not a preference for that type of liberalism.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 1:36:08 PM


Oh, right, because you are a liberal and a Liberal pretending to be some sort of disgruntled Conservative, a faaaaaaaaaabulously flaming faux-con fragger.

Um, yeah. I'm sure they'd welcome an ultra-capitalist, anti-gun control, free speech absolutist like myself with open arms.

But I do tend to agree with the Liberal Party more on social positions. But they're unacceptable to me for just the opposite reason that conservatives are. And the NDP moreso.

So what makes you think I'd ever endorse any three major parties, or even "secretly" support one of them?

But lets face it. Conservatives aren't even good on what they're supposed to be good for, when it comes to the "libertarian-conservative compromise": economic policy.

Republican Party in the US: Massive deficits, just like Democratic Party.

Conservative Party of Canada: Second biggest deficit in Canadian history. 40% increase in size of Federal Government, implementation of federal securities regulator, uploading provincial jurisdictions to Ottawa, more bank regulations, higher social spending on everything.

Let's be honest: if the Liberal Party had been in power and done half of all that, Conservatives would be livid about the spendthrift Liberal Party.

Why aren't they mad in this case? Oh, that's right... the necessities of holding on to power in a minority government. Selling out all your principles, power over policy, etc.

Good deal! Does it come with a free pen?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 1:39:29 PM


I wonder if it has occurred to any libertarian on this board to question whether libertarians are electable at all, or whether they simply blame society for not being in step with them and that, ergo, the whole world is at fault.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-30 1:46:40 PM


"I wonder if it has occurred to any libertarian on this board to question whether libertarians are electable at all, or whether they simply blame society for not being in step with them and that, ergo, the whole world is at fault."

Here we go again ...

Posted by: Charles | 2010-09-30 1:57:01 PM


Yes, Charles, here we go again. And here we shall go again, and again, round and round, until the libertarians either get elected or, more likely, follow these politicians' example and grow up and face reality.

It's not like the Canadian public is unaware of your platform. They're simply not supporting it in effective numbers. You can sit there and blame them for being stupid, superstitious, and irrational, of course, but that won't get you elected, or your policies enacted. Will it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-09-30 2:23:13 PM


If you think abortion is immoral....If you think in your heart, that there is nothing redeeming about these things.....your "libertarian" values will melt away like butter in a frying pan.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 10:51:31 AM

I thought executing an innocent person (the baby) was not a libertarian value. If you think executing the innocent is a libertarian value you do not know what a libertarian is. It is certainly not libertarian to the baby in the womb. Abortion makes a murder victim- a strange libertarian act.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 4:48:19 PM


StanleyR,

I'm not going to get drawn into an abortion debate, but I will say that I do not accept the religious doctrine that life begins at conception. Since our life is purely corporial it makes no sense to attribute personhood to a developing fetus.

And spare me emotional appeals about little beating hearts and the presence of a developing nervous system.

I've heard it all before.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 4:53:40 PM


I've heard it all before.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 4:53:40 PM

Lets not have medical facts get in the way when life begins according to people like you.
Because of this your not a libertarian.
They abort a 7 month gestation baby and according to you it is not a life, yet they try to save the life of a premature 6 month gestation baby in the other wing of the hospital who is in critical condition.
So the baby at 7 months gestation is not a life but the one at 6 months gestation is? Strange logic if you think so.
Repeat you are not a libertarian.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 5:03:57 PM


Mike Brock must also support infanticide. Surely if Mike believes that a woman has the liberty to abort her baby until 9 months, surely that would mean that a premature baby that is born should be allowed to be killed right until the due date. The only difference between a 7 month gestation baby in the womb and a baby born 2 months early is geography.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 5:38:14 PM


@ StanleyR: one should view 'premature birth' as likely being the bodies attempt to abort a somehow physically subpar specimen. Allowing it to die would be humane.
Anyway, as terrible as this decision is, the WRAP is still the way to go for Alberta. Libertarians need to engage and fight for these kind of 'half-and-half' institutions. They offer the best return/risk ratio.
Mike, your contention that one must have a 'libertarian' culture to be libertarian is absurd. There is no such thing; libertarianism is purely a political belief. Objectivism, on the other hand....

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-30 6:01:51 PM


StanleyR,

There's no medical facts being disputed. Pointing to a beating heart or a nervous system in early stage development does not prove that the fetus is self-aware, and has feelings, aspirations or any sense of anything. In fact, if you want to play the medical science game, all of the evidence in that regard is stacked against the claim that a fetus is a person.

It gets even crazier, because Christians claim that this multi-cell blastocyst is a person, too:

Yes, this collection of cells, which is only visible under a microscope -- is a human being! I mean, how could you mistake it for anything else? What do you think it's favorite color is?

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 6:06:06 PM


All the DNA is contained in that picture of cells. The DNA is complete even then.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 6:11:16 PM


but I will say that I do not accept the...

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 4:53:40 PM


but I will say that I do not accept the fact that Mike Brock is a libertarian.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 6:15:05 PM


Pro-"choice" is not a universally held libertarian position. I have heard Walter Block argue that if a fetus can be evicted while viable enough to develop it's (his or her) abortion should be illegal. Ron and Rand Paul are traditional pro-lifers and there are Objectivists on both sides. Most politically active libertarians not hiding under the name of another party can really only agree on leaving the decisions to individuals and health care professionals.

Prostitution as handled in Nevada seems to work fine, I guess. Brothels are likely the safest places for service providers and clients. I grew up in Calgary where a prostitute lived down the street and I don't remember any problems. She took it upon herself to educate all of us 6 year old boys in the neighborhood on sex and reproduction. We thought she was strange but harmless. It was kind of bizzare having to teach our older siblings what we had learned. That was 1957 and I have no idea whether prostitution was legal or not.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-09-30 6:20:07 PM


All the DNA is contained in that picture of cells. The DNA is complete even then.

So? What does DNA have to do with personhood? A potential person is not the same as a person.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 6:43:45 PM


That picture shows the time frame nearly at the earliest stage of development, to try to show me how ridiculous it is see that I am looking at a human being.

Yet at your earlier post, you wanted to dispute when life begins.

So at your second post you do not dispute that the object in the picture was NOT alive because you refer to it as cells... and cells can only be one thing- that they are living material unless they die.

So I don't need to bring up beating hearts or nervous system because you tried to convince me that life originates even at a earlier stage as shown in the picture then at the stage of beating hearts or nervous system.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 6:56:54 PM


"Wild Rose", nice name for a whore...
The theocrats will never let go Alberta.

Posted by: Marc | 2010-09-30 7:20:28 PM


Being alive is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for being a person. Your arguments are the same old, same old.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-09-30 7:32:37 PM


Shane,
You are likely right in your assertion that libertarians are unelectable.

For me this is a far greater indictment of democracy than libertarianism.

Kindest Regards,
Paul

Posted by: Paul R. Welke | 2010-09-30 7:41:17 PM


My spit contains living, whole cells. Are they persons too?
@Chittick: Objectivism is ALWAYS pro-choice. If there is a self-proclaimed 'Objectivist' on the anti-choice side, I'd like to know his/her name so they can be tarred and ignited.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-09-30 7:43:12 PM


"Being alive is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for being a person."

For a person who calls himself a libertarian, that is a shocking and scandalous statement of belief.
Such a condition of what constitutes a person is central to what it means to be libertarian. ANY compromise at all on that destroys that foundation. Personhood of EVERY human is central to liberty or it is not liberty you defend.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 8:21:03 PM


My spit contains living, whole cells. Are they persons too?

No they do not have the genetic makeup of a complete human being that the cells in the photo is. Take a course on human biology.

Posted by: StanleyR | 2010-09-30 8:28:52 PM


I'm kind of wondering where the pro-life Objectivists are myself. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've met quite a few Objectivists (several affiliated with ARI.)

Not only were they pro-choice; they were stridently pro-choice.

Posted by: Terrence | 2010-09-30 9:19:25 PM


"Wild Rose", nice name for a whore...
The theocrats will never let go Alberta.

Posted by: Marc | 2010-09-30 7:20:28 PM

You sound a little like a redneck Marc. I think would fit in well here.

Your comments about the "theocrats" indicate that you just want to argue.

Posted by: TM | 2010-10-01 12:56:47 AM


1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.