The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Good morning. Do you love Canada?
Look at the front pages. Thank you, Norman Spector. The visuals make it very plain. What's the common theme? Harper Harper Harper, same sex same sex blah tee blah blah. Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun: Media's hidden agenda. Doesn't look too bloody hidden. Goldstein:
Now, I would have thought the more interesting questions were (a) why was Harper even asked a "when are you going to stop beating your wife" question like "do you love the country?" and (b) why didn't the media ask Martin about Gomery, since it was obvious why he wouldn't raise it.
We have massive corruption in the Liberal party, proven criminality, bigger than anything that happened in the Mulroney years. We have a prime minister, a man of wealth and privilige, who represents the very worst of Canada, an oligarchy with little concern for the well-being of ordinary Canadians primarily focused on manipulating the laws to their own financial advantage. What do we get from our mainstream media on the very first day of the campaign? Just stupid stuff--stuff they are making up--about how Stephen Harper made a gaffe by simply stating his party's policy. It's pathetic, this make-believe. Well, we're now in the hermetically sealed time bubble of an election campaign and whatever happened before doesn't exist. Let's not ask Paul Martin any tough questions. And even within that bubble we have the Prime Minister lying directly to reporters about how the Ignatieff nomination was an open process, which is directly refuted by the people in the Liberal riding association. Is this lie considered a gaffe? Apparently not. We have allegations from a reputable forensic auditor of insider trading probably originating out of the Department of Finance, undermining both investor confidence and the credibility of the bureaucracy responsible for handling the country's money.
Do you love Canada? I would answer like Harper, say something like, well you know it could be a good place, but... and I would add, but right now it's a joke.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good morning. Do you love Canada?:
Geez, the Liberals are even more desperate than I thought. Normally they wouldn't bring out something as pathetic as "Do you love your country"? until the last days of the campaign. But if their record is all they have to stand on, I guess this was inevitable.
Ontario: wake the hell up! This is a sign from above.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-30 8:45:57 AM
Harper should have either said Yes or something along the lines of......you must be one of those Liberal friendly/funded media guys. He could have then gone on to explain how the media has received over 10 Billion dollars from the governing liberals which given human nature would explain why they get behind their golden goose.
Posted by: truthsayer | 2005-11-30 9:19:25 AM
IMO, the opening Harper press conference was just about perfect - only thing missing was a question on the big "A". The juggernaut to another Lieberal majority is already well underway.
Lest you think I've fallen on my head in hoping for this, as a fiscal and social conservative, I abandoned hope long ago for any substantive positive change in this "nation", even were the Reform/Alliance/CPC to figure out a way to overcome the systemic bias against even their watered-down platform.
For it is no longer simply enough for a allegedly conservative party to win a majority and form a government. As the last two decades have revealed, the only real change that occurs in Canada eminates from the "Court Party", as Professor Morton so aptly describes it. How apropros that the B.C. Human Rights Star Chamber rules against Catholics in favour of gays on the very day the election is called (quite odd, I'd say, that they couldn't release their decision and day earlier or later unless, of course, they had a hidden agenda).
The CPC can win 300+ seats, but unless they're prepared to fire and replace a thousand or so judges during their term, the rate of "progress" in Canada and its corresponding descent into oblivion will not be impeded one whit. Therefore, the best possible result is for the Lieberals to sweep Ontario and win a strong majority, which would result in another Quebec referendum in short order and Morton's installation as the next Premier of Alberta. Then the fun would start.
So you go, Little Paul - shriek your devotion from the heights of Mount Trudeau (just watch your step). Put on the gloss and start kissin' them babies, Landslide Annie - just remember not to stop for photo-ops unless it's the product of a SS"M".
Posted by: Great Walls of Fire | 2005-11-30 9:27:43 AM
Ask "What's the Lieberal hidden agenda THIS TIME?" Bring out the various Red Books and point out the consistent lying. Why does anybody believe them?
I really think they should attack the bias in the media. They can't do any more damage than what they already do. Most Canadians don't realize it. If all the CPC can take away from this election is a minority, at least use this chance to show the media for what they are.
Big surprise watching Rick Mercer Report last night. He's roaming around Ft McMurray with their mayor. He says something like "I'll come back. Unless Stephen Harper wins and gets rid of the CBC." Real smooth
Posted by: johnmac | 2005-11-30 9:40:05 AM
what harper should have said was "I love Canada which is why I'm so concerned with the damage that paul martin and the liberals have done to it."
In which case the MSM would have scraped the clip and gone on to quote an anonymous source dredging up the scary hidden agenda.
Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-30 9:50:15 AM
If the Conservatives wish to win this election they need to start thinking "out side the box". For those who don't know what that means or how to do it,..... don' worry, be happy.
Trying to change the way the media presents the campaign cannot be done directly but it can be done, not by reason but by getting your message out by buying space in the media and producing your own "copy", not to explain your platform but to explain how the Liberals have been running their election campaings. (Political parties don't run election campaigns,Advertising agencies do.)
In the last Quebec referendum the governing Liberals bought up most of the billboard space in Quebec ( through Ad agencies?) ( they also spent more than they legally were allowed to, according to Gomery)
How they ran their referendum campaign really upset Quebecers, once they understood what they did.If Canadians understand that the Lliberals do essentially the same thing in their federal election campaigns Canadians ( especially those in Ontario) might feel used and abused just like Quebecers do and refuse to vote Liberal. Don't be conned again
What would be more acceptable to Canadians? A Liberal minority supported by the NDP or a Conservative minority supported by the NDP?
Posted by: truthsayer | 2005-11-30 10:18:53 AM
I'm with Warwick on this one.
Anything uncontroversial out of Harper will get zip coverage. Anything that may be positive will not be covered verbatim from Stephen but rather be editorialized by the MSM talking head.
This campaign will be an uphill battle all the way and it will have to be won at the retail level - face to face or telephone to telephone directly with the public. This is a foot soldier war from our (the CP's) perspective and carpet bombing the electorate from 45,000 feet can't be done if you don't have the media on side.
Posted by: Gord Tulk | 2005-11-30 10:28:28 AM
My favourite from today, the Liberal Party's recommitment to freedom of the press. Apparently the Lib's eager-beaver libel lawyers have sent threatening letters to members of the press who might write criical things about them. From Andrew Coyne's column today:
"Never mind, last, that "record" has, given the trail of laws that appear to have been broken in Quebec, a rather unfortunate connotation, which a letter from the party's libel lawyers prevents me from discussing."
See ther full link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b1911e82-ae66-442a-80ae-8cce9ed78347&k=10144
Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-11-30 10:37:32 AM
Mr. Harper might have said, "I am dedicated to Canada, which is why I am angling for the Prime Ministers seat instead of the First Ministers seat in Alberta."
Posted by: Speller | 2005-11-30 10:49:16 AM
More than Mr Canadian swdatship lines does.
He never met a canadian he wouldn't take a job from.
Posted by: ghollingshead | 2005-11-30 10:57:29 AM
Posted by: ghollingshead | 2005-11-30 10:58:44 AM
I suggest a campaign using funny mishaps from liberals, just like the catchy tune devised by the Bloc (see their website: je me souviens).
People should be more aware of propaganda and dishonesty in the medias. Ref.: the anchor scandal in USA.
Please be creative.Imagine tunes. Draw cartoons. Why not Stephen Harper as Road Runner and Paul Martin as the wolf?
I think libranos was a good start. Let us develop it even further.
Economy is doing great? Of course. Ask people in Ontario loosing their jobs. A good tune on economy, relating the closure of auto plants in Ontario?
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-11-30 11:44:57 AM
Paul Martin has some nerve asking anyone from western Canada or the conservative movement to pass his test of citizenship. Here's the guy who stole millions from the EI fund, taking money away from people who had paid into the fund with every expectation that it would be there as an insurance policy for them, then millions found that the rules were changed in such a draconian way that their money had virtually been stolen and transferred to general revenues. Now we learn that, from there, it was again transferred to Montreal business ventures that were largely fraudulent and controlled in some instances by the Mob. This is how you love Canada, Paulie?
Give me a break. If this Liberal attitude of talking down to western Canada and to conservatives in general continues, then Alberta and even western separatism will flare up as soon as this election is over, in the event that the Liberals win any kind of victory at all, even a minority, because many of us (I live in BC) are fed up with being governed like a colony. I am absolutely sure that anything remotely like the NEP Part II will bring violent reactions to the streets of western Canada. We need some conservative media with some gumption in Canada right now. There are a lot of people wasting space in conservative media writing puff pieces on irrelevant subjects while new people with a better take on what's actually happening to our country are being shut out of publication altogether. It's time to stir things up a little -- the conservative intellectual leadership in Canada thinks that it has done a wonderful job, but if the truth were known, they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Maybe that's something to discuss while floating around in the Caribbean while ordinary conservatives fight this election.
Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2005-11-30 12:21:52 PM
"Explosives' or "explosive", aka as Liberal implosion(s). Well, CS, & others...waddya think?
We have jabbered previously about this internecine warfare in the Librano$$$$
Here it is... in Canadians' faces; right in Tsar Paul AdScam Martin's puss. Sock 'em ole Jean. KO, them, Jean, ole ami, ole garcon, ole Librano$
Recall: Title of the Gomery Inquiry: "Who is Responsible?" (verify same). Well, well, Gomery Report blamed Chretien & pals.
Gomery Report is spurious; a whitewash of Martin. Down with Librano$ >>
# Of or relating to struggle within a nation, organization, or group.
# Mutually destructive; ruinous or fatal to both sides dictionary.com
Chretien files court motion challenging Gomery's sponsorship findings
2 hours, 50 minutes ago
OTTAWA (CP) - Former prime minister Jean Chretien has launched a legal torpedo at the federal sponsorship inquiry by filing a Federal Court challenge against Justice John Gomery's findings.
The strike was expected but the timing is explosive.
Chretien says Gomery was biased against him and that the judge's conclusion that the ex-prime minister was responsible for the scandal was not supported by facts heard at the sponsorship inquiry.
Chretien announced after the Nov. 1 release of Gomery's report that he would appeal, and he had 30 days to file a Federal Court motion.
He has waited until the very end of that period to file the motion - just as his successor and rival
Prime Minister Paul Martin is launching the Liberal election campaign with some splashy events in Quebec.
Word of the application came as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper announced in Quebec he would appoint a special prosecutor for federal crimes if elected. >>>> more
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-11-30 12:46:23 PM
I forgot to add this suggestion.
Why not find a French Canadian skilled politician to add to the CPC team? Remember Lucien Bouchard was the right hand man of Brian Mulroney. And one of his friend was Jean Charest.
I don't think Ontario is the key to a CPC majority. It is just too obvious. Just adding seats doesn't make a majority. Québec is the key, like it has been for a long time. Because the Bloc is holding most of the counties doesn't mean it cannot be changed.
You have to start from reality. Reality is Quebecers are emotional people. You have to look for some strong emotional event. Like Lucien Bouchard supporting ADQ and saying something like: CPC is the least harmful solution to Canada problem this time!
Or considering the possibility of a conservative minority, why not start negotiating a coalition with the Bloc right now? People in Québec remember those responsible for the failure of Meech Lake.
I can bet my shirt also that if you did a referendum in Québec to keep traditional marriage, it would win.
Look at Québec history. One of the most famous prime minister was a true conservative: Maurice Duplessis. Traditionnaly, Québec was a conservative province. when I was young, we use to hear: sky is blue, hell is red! Union Nationale ued blue, libs used red.
How many countries have coalition governments? Germany just devised one. Israel had one for quite a while. Even Irak is headed to a kind of coalition: Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis. Who else? I let readers to find others.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-11-30 1:04:51 PM
Remi- I think some of your suggestions are very good. I don't think that Quebec is the key to the election, but I think that future governments in Canada might very well be coalition governments. They might include the BLOC - and Western 'BLOCS'.
I think that what SHOULD happen, is a CPC minority government. Not a majority. My point is that, as I keep repeating, Canada is at a threshold, changing (I hope) to a different political, economic and social structure. Away from the centralization, from the homogeneity, the equalization of the past - and into a decentralized system.
This means - economic and political power to the provinces - or, as I suggest, regional domains. Each effectively self-governing domains. A vastly reduced federal gov't. The end of the unvetted patronage system, and a return of governmental power to the electorate.
An end to equalization and enabling Canadians to accumulate investment surplus - this would end our requirement for foreign investment to build our factories and industries; they can be partners, and...so can we.
An end to bilingualism - and a return to the electorate, of the power to govern themselves. Bilingualism disables the majority of the population from entering the gov't.
I think that the Bloc is now a permanent feature, and I think it is more important, to represent Quebec, than the PQ. Why? Because I don't think separation is the answer. I think a strong decentralization is the answer - which would mean that the BLOC would represent Quebecers. The PQ would disappear. Each area of Canada would have such a party - who would send members to the federal gov't, now drastically reduced.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-30 1:18:45 PM
Remi, you’re right, it’s always been about Quebec, but that needs to change. I think ET is onto something. Besides Charest, Bouchard agree with what has to be done and probably the ADQ would agree too.
For example out of a budget of $77 billion Ontario needs $31 billion for Health and $15 billion for education. These numbers will need to grow next year over twice as fast as the economy. Something has to change. Because the tax revenues can only come from the one taxpayer – us. Also, the debt for Ontario is high and growing and chewing up $10 billion in servicing costs. It’s even worse in Quebec. This is a very risky situation in a rising interest rate environment, nobody is talking about it.
Remi perhaps you’re right, maybe Harper should say clearly now to all the Provinces, that the CPC would offer a new deal, for example:
“ We’re dropping taxes federally and we’re no longer going to pretend in Ottawa that we’re responsible for Provincial jurisdictions– Health and Education – so you Provinces go ahead and raise taxes to cover off what Ottawa has heretofore been trying to bribe you with”
Why wouldn't we all welcome that? Harper really only needs to get 4 provinces onside. He could work with the Bloc to get it through a minority government.
Ontario is almost 45% of the Canadian economy and we know even McGuinty wants to change things, so that Ontario can be more self-sufficient. And we suspect that Harper has already talked to him about it.
Alberta and BC together make up about 25% of the economy, they are growing and I think they’d like this devolution approach too.
Quebec is declining, down to 22 % of the economy, both Bouchard and Charest agree on what has to be done; i.e. deal with unfavourable demographics, recognize the massive debt problems and that the bully Government Unions need to be vanquished and last but not least, that Quebecers need to learn English and get ready for India and China who will wipe us all out if we’re not ready.
Quebec has actually figured out what needs to be done before Ottawa has. Why don’t we all get on board?
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-30 2:29:47 PM
ET, I agree with several of your points. Within your decentralization topic, I would include having a triple-E senate (equal, elected and effective), getting the feds out of ei (lotto 10/42), cpp, health care (to get rid of the blame problem), and child care (which is a recent addition to the nanny state). I am sure there are more. Many of these things have come under the Federal domain about in the past 30 years. They should be in the provincial domain.
The problem I have with your equalization reform is that you seem to be advocating its removal. That will be difficult to do because it was in the original British North American Act of 1867 (renamed the Constitution Act). It would be much easier to alter the way it works. The transfer payments could be calculated on expenses rather than revenue. Doing so would give the have not provinces an incentive and a means to get out of debt and get their economy going without being dependants. That would be a good first step toward the eventual removal of equalization. Small steps will slowly change public attitude kind of like a minority CPC gov you want.
Of course, small steps can also simply be undone by the next government. This has to be done properly such that it would be difficult to undo. Can these kind of changes you propose even be done by the federal government? Or would a province have to put forth the resolutions? More info on this here:
I like several of the articles at that site.
Posted by: jmrsudbury | 2005-11-30 2:40:26 PM
If you love Canada, you'll send me five dollars, er, no, make it ten dollars.
And some beer.
Posted by: Virgil | 2005-11-30 2:42:19 PM
M. Houle's suggestion is a hackneyed old canard. Contrast US FF John Jay's statement,
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs ..."
with Henri Joly de Lotbiniere's tongue in cheek sarcasm, in the legislative assembly of Canada, 20 Feb. 1865,
"I propose the adoption of the rainbow as our emblem. By the endless variety of its tints the rainbow will give an excellent idea of the diversity of races, religions, sentiments, and interests of the different parts of the Confederation. By its slender and elongated form the rainbow would afford a perfect representation of the geographical configuration of the Confederation. By its lack of consistence - an image without substance - the rainbow would represent aptly the solidity of our Confederation. An emblem we must have, for every great empire has one; let us adopt the rainbow."
Let's not re-trod on well trodden ground. Israel is ethnically homogeneous. Germany is ethnically homogeneous. Iraq has no coalition. Quebec has never elected a member from a party with its origin in English Canada. The NDP is a prime example. Dief won in Quebec, while Duplessis reigned, because he faced Pearson, an Anglo, not St. Laurent, a favourite son. Mulroney won overwhelmingly in Quebec because he faced Turner, an Anglo, not Trudeau, a favourite son. In fact Mulroney would have won in '84 even w/o a single seat in Quebec.
It's a pipe dream. English Canada will not accept another Meech Lake. Lotbiniere was right.
Posted by: DJ | 2005-11-30 3:06:52 PM
Speaking of images - have you noticed that the Liberals are focusing on 'image-stars'. Ignatieff and (sorry- I have a terrible memory - the other guy...astronaut).
There are two key factors in the Liberal ideology. The first, is that they are operating within a platform that is ONE generation out of date.
Centralism, homogeneity, equalization, bilingualism - are one generation out of date. They are now disastrous systems. But they remain the backbone of the Liberal ideology. The Liberals focus on these 'images' because these are the images that have been schooled into one full generation.
The fact that the parliamentary system has been destroyed, that the electorate has lost control of the gov't; that a closed oligarchy has taken control; that bilingualism has closed gov't power to 80% of the population; that equalization has disabled the dev't of an investor class in Canada...all of this they ignore.
So- their images are out of date, and frankly, the focus on imagery (star candidates) is also out of date, for it assumes a voter who is ignorant and simply 'out for the Gladiator Show'.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-30 3:32:58 PM
The snivelling, gibbering, liberal media
By Stephen Gray
The election campaign was barely started and the snivelling, gibbering, liberal media went into attack mode on Stephen Harper. One of these word manipulators asked Mr. Harper: “Do you love this country?” A banal and ridiculous question. Still, this type of nonsense is to be expected from these sleazy scribblers of media manipulation.
The next issue for some of these propagandists of the press was the aberration called “same-sex marriage.” Mr. Harper stated that if his party formed the next government there would be a free vote in Parliament on this issue. An honorable and democratic thing to do. But, the liberal media had other ideas on this. This abomination called “same-sex marriage was a done deal according to them. Why would Harper even bring it up, they asked? Some of them were practically cackling and going into convulsions of joy on TV at this “mistake.” This from so-called “investigative” journalists, who should know “gay marriage” was never in the Charter and is an invention and distortion of words. But, propaganda is the forte of these sodomy supporting scribblers and media manipulators. These are the people who have been in the forefront of pushing, promoting and supporting this nonsense called “same-sex marriage” and they continue to do so.
Meanwhile they give the Liberals a free ride. Millions of our tax dollars are still missing and the banality is asked: “Do you love this Country?” One would think they would be asking Paul Martin: “When are you going to get to the bottom of where the Taxpayers Dollars went? Mr. Martin you were the Finance Minister. If you do not know where millions of dollars went, does that not make you incompetent? And should you really be Prime Minister?” But, don’t hold your breath on these questions being asked. After all, Mr. Harper is “scary,” has a “hidden agenda,” and is “unsmiling,” according to these jokers of journalism. It really is pathetic watching the monopoly media manipulating the “news.”
The real NEWS in this country is: The people have been robbed. Political filth is passed in parliament. Criminals are allowed to vote. Why? Because they now have a “right” under the abominable Charter. Liberal flunkeys claim they are, “entitled to their entitlements” even though they quit their jobs. Non-elected liberal judges are “reading in” words not written in the Charter and imposing their abnormalities on the country. Cowardly politicians of liberal bent have allowed this to happen and anybody who questions this assault on democracy is ridiculed and reviled. Our children are taught that a dangerous and disease ridden lifestyle is “happy.” Over 100,000 babies are killed in their mothers wombs and this atrocity is called “choice.” Meanwhile parliament protects spotted owls, eagles, fish, baby seals, grizzly bears etc. Animals have more protection than human life and a twit of a “reporter” asks: “Do you love this country?” A more appropriate question would be: “Have our ruling elites gone mad?” But, our snivelling, gibbering liberal media seem to be incapable of rational thought.
Nov. 30, 2005.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2005-11-30 4:45:50 PM
Do you love Canada? C'mon that's a pretty softball question. Harper should've hit that one out of the park. I assume every politician is asked this kind of question before. The fact that the media didn't bring it up last election to any of the candidates is pretty surprising.
Posted by: Lying Liebral | 2005-11-30 4:58:21 PM
The Question is simply a lame attempt by a fool to provoke some kind of response that could in turn be construed as controversial.
It's a ploy that only deserves a Non-Sequitur reply!
My answer to him/her would have been " More than you ! You little P**ck!"
Personally I think that if the p**ck who asked that question would care to stand up and identify himself I am sure he would get more than an earfull!
Does anybody know who its was??
Posted by: PGP | 2005-11-30 6:25:30 PM
I always rooted for the "Coyote"!!!
He may have been slow on the uptake and bit shy in the imagination dept. But he was persistent.
I alway wanted to see that smug little b**tard bird get flattened.
PM PM as the Coyote?? Naw ....that image just doesn't do it....think Sponge Bob! or Patrick!
Posted by: PGP | 2005-11-30 6:33:28 PM
But Seriously..........Where do these reporters come from?
That is assuming that they actually are reporters!
Posted by: PGP | 2005-11-30 6:36:16 PM
Harper => Bugs Bunny
Martin => Porky Pig
Layton => Daffy Duck
Duceppe => Pepe Le Pue
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-30 6:46:22 PM
Harper => Rocky
Martin => Boris
Layton => Natasha
Duceppe => Bullwinkle
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-30 6:54:17 PM
He starting to warm up to the idea of loving canada.
Check it out at
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-30 9:30:21 PM
I remember when 'gay' meant happy cheerful festive.
Now it means anal sex.
I remember when special meand extraordinary, talented, more highly skilled
Now it means mentally, physically or emotionally deficient
Got language theft to add to this list? I'd like to hear it?
We need to take back our language. Pretty soon, like teen-agers we have to start adding "like you know what I mean" to everything we say to avoid being hauled up in front of a collectivist tribulal for offending someone.
So .. do I love Canada? When you say Canada ... How can I be sure you mean my country and some other reference to a leftist creation ... if you do .. then I can say ... " certainly not as much as I used to". and it's your fault you leftist trough sucking bastards.
Oh dear ... have I hurt feelings here?
"Angy in my great white home-office"
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-30 9:41:15 PM
Harper = Ned Flanders
Martin = Mr. Burns
Layton = Smithers
Duceppe = the Sea Captain
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-30 9:44:26 PM
How about this Scott.
Harper= Hank Hill
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-30 9:55:15 PM
Andrew: tooooo funny, but Layton is not as coherent as Boomhauer.
Harper = Fry
Martin = The Professor
Layton = Hermes
Duceppe = Dr. Zoidberg
Harper = Peter Griffin
Martin = Chris
Layton = Stewie
Duceppe = Cleveland
Isn't this wrong for grown adults to be watching cartoons? Nah.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-30 10:03:09 PM
Haha, I'm not a grown adult. I can't even drink for another few months(not that I plan to). I can vote though and that's all that matters! I've already ordered a sign to put in my university residence window that coincidentally faces the cafeteria. I sure hope Victoria elects a CPC candidate.
Harper= Erick Foreman
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-30 10:14:22 PM
Harper = Han Solo
Martin = The Emperor
Layton = Darth Vader
Duceppe = R2D2
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-30 10:23:21 PM
"I remember when 'gay' meant happy cheerful festive.
Now it means anal sex."
I have a feeling, Duke, that you must read 'anal sex' into a lot of things if you're so quick to arrive at it when hearing such an innocuous word as 'gay'. It's like saying that for you "babies" are code for 'Vaginal intercourse" - see for me I think 'cute' or 'innocent'. But maybe this is part of a larger problem for you - maybe you frequently relate mundane words with sex.
Have you explained your unfortunate predilection to friends and co-workers? I suggest you do as it'll help to explain to them why whenever they say things like 'Hello", "how are you?" or "nice weather we're having" you respond by dropping your pants and bending over.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-11-30 10:24:57 PM
As college subjects:
Harper = Double Honors Major in Politics and Economics (sounds great on surface, but won't get you a job)
Martin = Major Philosophy, Minor Law (any combination would do if you had the right family connections)
Layton = Social Work and Labor Studies (100% guaranteed government job)
Duceppe = European History and French Literature (in Quebec, you could go far)
As high school subjects:
Harper = Shop (you'll learn skills that you will think is a waste of time and effort now, but deeply appreciate later).
Martin = Phys Ed (he'll be the coach driving the cart)
Layton = Social Studies (the hippie teacher)
Duceppe = French (duh!)
As Simpsons School staff:
Harper = Principle Skinner
Martin = Superintendent Chalmers
Layton = Lunchlady Doris
Duceppe = Groundskeeper Willie
As Simpsons School Students, not including Bart or Lisa:
Harper = Milhous
Martin = Nelson
Layton = Ralph Wiggum
Duceppe = Uter
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-30 10:33:20 PM
Justin, you're a stick in the mud(or stick in the rear?). Do us all a favour and just go away.
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-11-30 10:47:39 PM
I remember when gay meant liberty for homosexuals, which I support.
Now gay means left-wing political activist collectives intent on needlessly pestering us with their particular proclivites, which I don't support.
My dad said that in the second big war, everybody knew who was whom, and the respectfully kept out of each others way on shore leave.
But under the light of the rockets red glare, they were simply men fighting a common enemy. Collectivism & fascism, as it turns out.
So in my book it's way more important to know if someone's a commie or some other form of totalitarian, than to know if they are simply homosexual.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-30 10:49:01 PM
Have to disagree on 1 of your points...Quebecers are the biggest socialists this side of the Atlantic...they'd never support the traditional definition of marriage...they are the least Christian province in Canada. They support just about everything that we Conservatives do not believe in, except for more power for the provinces, which is our only similar view. Sorry, I think you are a lone duck in the cesspool of socialism that is Quebec...so hang on to your shirt ! :)
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-11-30 11:48:32 PM
Justin, the gay lobby has insisted that being gay is about sex and the celebration by society of it, hence, as the supreme court said, and I paraphrase, a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is "repugnant". So, the history of the world, if it didn't include the celebration of homosexuality, is "repugnant".
Your leap to thinking about "babies" in terms of sex is twisted for sure and quite typical of the kind of *wisdom* to expect from a liberal: repugnant.
Posted by: wharold | 2005-11-30 11:51:30 PM
Here's the questions I'd like to see a reporter ask Paul Martin:
Do you love Alberta?
Which do you love best Alberta or Quebec?
Are you willing to take a polygraph?
Posted by: Scott S | 2005-12-01 2:59:15 PM
"Your leap to thinking about "babies" in terms of sex is twisted for sure and quite typical of the kind of *wisdom* to expect from a liberal: repugnant.""
Dude - if that baby grows up to be gay you and your kind just said you think it means 'anal sex'. Seems you're just playing a 'wait-and-see" game.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-12-01 9:11:32 PM
Moving right along from the ridiculous to the incomprehensible, then. As an alternative, consider (for example): eucaryote.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-12-01 10:54:57 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.