Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Extremist Iran=Fascism | Main | George Brown Day »

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Bobby Jindal: The Next Governor of Louisiana

Well, it's official.  Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American who converted from Hinduism to Christianity in his teens, is the next Governor of the State of Louisiana.  He wins outright - with 54% of the vote.  The runner-up had 18%.  Remember this the next time someone tries to claim that all Americans, Southerners, Republicans, etc. are racists.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 20, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bobby Jindal: The Next Governor of Louisiana:



Finally someone who will clean up the cirruptiobn on that state that is second only to New Jersey in political filth.

The inept and useless Bianco will be gone shortly. Should another state-wide emergency arise, there will be someone capable at the helm.

This is what happens when you elect someone with breasts to office only because no such person has held that office before.

Shrillery would be the same type of failure - no experience, certainly no achievements - except for a marriage that allowed her the public eye.

Isn't this what feminists have warned about for years? DO NOT rely on men, but do it on your own?

Her Heinous would be a nobody were it not for Billybob the rapist and molester - and she was his enabler all these years just for this purpose. Now it is her turn - she thinks,

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 7:11:22 AM

i've read a lot about this guy. he seems to be the man for the job. he gets nothing but accolades from the conservative grassroots.

could he be the catalyst for change in the GOP? i hope so, 'cause they are a sad bunch these days. it's embarrassing.

what suprises me is Louisiana voted Republican after the government's supposed reticence dealing with the hurricane, as if the State should have helped at all. i thought at the time, "what an incredible sense of entitlement. what an incredible collective victim complex. my upper lip curls. suck it up and deal with it yourselves, whiners".

then again, because they voted Republican, maybe they weren't whiners at all. maybe they WERE stoic and tough, and just got on with life. maybe the msm were trying to manufacture victims and outrage.

i know i'm speculating, but, well...

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 9:41:41 AM

shel ~

It didn't hurt his chances for election, now that thousands of Louisianans were relocated to Texas and other states after the hurricane.

And of course, crime has risen in Houston & other cities as a result of these same relocations - which tells us that these lost "voters" were DemoRats.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 9:46:04 AM


yeah, you're right. i didn't think of that. the rabble just left town...

...which simply proves Democrats and social liberals are pantywaists with no drive to survive away from the State, as individuals.

at least Texans can target practice when these parasites get out of hand. (heh heh)

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 10:00:31 AM

. . . and this "relocation" might assure the defeat of Mary Landrieu (DemoRat-Louisiana) in next year's senatorial election, as well.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 10:04:40 AM

every hurricane cloud has a silver lining. :)

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 10:08:24 AM

So will it be Mardi Gras in the Big Curry now?

Just a joke and I know that unlike the muzzies, the Indian people can take a joke.

This is good news. Let's hope this guy isn't another lying, cheating, thieving, phony politician with a law degree.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-21 10:22:42 AM

The people of Louisiana elected a man who evidently convinced them he was the best candidate for the job.

Had he campaigned wearing a turban of sat cross-legged on stage strumming a sitar while engaged in campaign debate then your post about "an Indian-American" would be apt.

Evidently this guy "Bobby" (short for Wykrahm? or something like that, I'm sure), is from people who came to America to be AMERICANS not "Indian-Americans."

We are a nation founded on an idea not a skin color or ethnicity. That "thinking" is for the Leftist folks to use as the means to destroy us.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-10-21 12:05:12 PM

. . . and that is why he will succeed as Governor!

Excellent attitude & work ethic.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 12:08:56 PM

I have noted that most East Indians have good work ethics and great family values. Perhaps India, with the many years as a British commonwealth parliamentary system has had something to do with that.

The mentally deranged Muslims had to be given their own country of Pakistan since they are incurable. You may have noted that they continue to explode and implode with the most recent huge example just days ago in an attempt to kill Ms Bhutto. Pakistan has no future. While India is becoming an economic and social powerhouse. Well on their way to first world status. They have more scientists, engineers and doctors than Canada has people. Muslims have more terrorists than Canada has people. What is wrong with that picture

East Indians are willing to assimilate into the new society, Bobby is prime example of that. There are a few here in BC in government (even through I disagree with their politics) who are good examples of this as well.

I know that I continue to harp on the same theme of the Islamic Jihad, but we all need to be aware that the third world war is on and will be on for the next several decades. things are not the way they used to be. Ignore our enemies at our peril

Posted by: John | 2007-10-21 3:08:02 PM

Do you think the Enemedia will splash this election result on their front pages with exciting words of praise for the election of the first governor of indian heritage? And the youngest governor today?

They would if he was a DemoRat.

Anyone remember when they hailed California for electing 2 women to the Senate - Boxer & Feinstein? Of course, they never mentioned that Maine had done this a few years earlier - but Maine's 2 female senators were both Republicans, so it was ignored.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 6:02:43 PM

"We are a nation founded on an idea not a skin color or ethnicity."

Unmitigated tripe and nonsense.

The Constitution of the United States of America

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and "our posterity", do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Posterity; "descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor; "we must secure the benefits of freedom for ourselves and our posterity"

Progenitor: "an ancestor in the direct line"

The US was founded by a people who were overwhelming British. Clearly, it was founded by that ethny, for that ethny and its posterity. Everyting else is simply a denial and perversion of the truth as outlined in the US Constitution.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-21 6:36:24 PM

Blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 7:15:47 PM

obc - Anyone remember when they hailed California for electing 2 women to the Senate - Boxer & Feinstein? Of course, they never mentioned that Maine had done this a few years earlier -

Feinstein became a senator in 1992, Boxer in 1993
Snowe became a senator in 1995, Collins in 1997

Unless 1992 and 1993 come after 1995 and 1997 you're wrong. With all the errors that you post it is quite hard to see how anyone can consider you credible.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-21 8:10:41 PM


where in the Constitution does it state "...for British and other selected acceptable Europeans..."

and riddle me this: are the myriad people in America of Far, Middle and Near Eastern, African, and South American etc. ancestry not deemed "our posterity"?

...and, do you not realize that, being Eurocentric, other people in the world, besides African slaves, were not remotely in the picture in that period of time in America?

...and have you not discovered part of the genious of the Constitution is it's inherent ability to self correct when human nature gets out of hand? the Constitution killed slavery and American apartheid, and gave every individual an equality of opportunity.

think a bit before spouting partisan stupidity.

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 8:52:20 PM

"where in the Constitution does it state "...for British and other selected acceptable Europeans..."

"our posterity" clearly asserts that position. The notion that there is no founding ethny in America is a total fabrication.

"and riddle me this: are the myriad people in America of Far, Middle and Near Eastern, African, and South American etc. ancestry not deemed "our posterity"?"

Not by the US Constitution they are not. Why do you think the 1924 immigration quota was established? It was designed to preserve the old stock Anglo-Americans majority.

"..and, do you not realize that, being Eurocentric, other people in the world, besides African slaves, were not remotely in the picture in that period of time in America?"

Why is THAT, do you think?

"...and have you not discovered part of the genious of the Constitution is it's inherent ability to self correct when human nature gets out of hand?"

Like the genious of the Canadian Charter, correcting the natural malady of those that oppose abortion or same-sex marriage.

An equal opportunity, yes, did not in anyway shape or form suggest that the US was "founded on an idea not a skin color or ethnicity."

Now that's partisan stupidity because it only serves to further the justification for mass immigration.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-21 11:54:53 PM


The Americans have kicked the British army in the sea or to go hide in Canada to become a country. People from various origins have participated in builting the United-States since day one.

I personally enjoy some points you sometimes bring but I think you are heading in the wrong direction.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 12:54:25 AM

Just happen to have a copy of The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION of the thirteen united STATES OF AMERICA. AKA The Declaration of Independence, sitting in front of me.
It declares, in part,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..."
It does NOT state one specific race, it clearly includes all. Note that God is referred to as the Creator,in deference to those who are not Christians or Jews.
This, to my mind, is one of the most perfect documents ever written by mankind.
Coincidently, it shoots down completely any suggestion that the Founding Fathers were in any way biased against any ethnicity. I'll pit those words any day against those who post racist comments on this blog.

Posted by: atric | 2007-10-22 9:34:51 AM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..."

How do you account for slavery?

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

The importation of such persons means slaves.

"Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)"

Three fifths of all other persons means slaves.

It's the nonsensical beliefs of the uninformed that suggests the US Constitution was not exclusionary.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 12:38:14 PM

blah, blah, blah from the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 1:04:00 PM

DJ -

I'm pleased you were able to use my comment to ignite a discussion of America's founding documents. Of course the majority of the early pilgrims and migrants to the original British colonies in America were British and Protestants but (at least) one of the signers of all the original documents was a Roman Catholic (John ? or Charles Carroll of Maryland - the "richest man in America at that time") and my recollection is that Alexander Hamilton was from Jamaica and thought to have black as well as British ancestors.

Neither Catholics nor blacks were particularly highly favored among the generally British decent population of that day, but they all mixed in with the native (indians) population to form the "posterity" who live peacefully near you today, pursuing that great idea (individual liberty from oppressive government) of America.

Please focus your ire on people with bad ideas and bad motives and bad conduct rather than "bad" genetics or lineage.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-10-22 3:08:38 PM

And once again, The French were there before the Anglos. They fought the Loyalists with the same courage they did up North. Many went from here anyway. Sorry for that imput guys.
...And vote for Mike Gravel (just kidding).

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 3:29:51 PM

Thank you Conrad, however, as you probably know, there was very little mixing between the founding American people and natives or blacks.

The focus "is" on bad ideas. As the native Americans will testify mass migration of distant peoples into a homeland is a "very" bad idea.

"When I was a boy, the Sioux owned the world. The sun rose and set on their land; they sent ten thousand men to battle. Where are the warriors today? Who slew them? Where are our lands? Who owns them?"

Sitting Bull

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 3:39:07 PM


The French were where before the Anglos? Cartier stopped in St. John's Newfoundland to re-supply before he "discovered" Canada.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 3:42:38 PM

South Carolina's Francis Salvador was the first identified Jew to be elected to an American colonial legislature and the first Jew to die fighting for American liberty.

At the age of 27, Salvador was elected to the General Assembly of South Carolina. He became the first Jew to hold that high an elective office in any of the English colonies.

In 1774, Francis Salvador was elected as a delegate to South Carolina’s revolutionary Provincial Congress.

When the Cherokees attacked colonists in July of 1776 – massacring and scalping many innocent settlers – Salvador rode his horse nearly thirty miles to warn the others. He then joined the militia to defend the settlements under attack. On August 1, during a Cherokee attack Salvador was shot and scalped.

William Henry Drayton, later Chief Justice of South Carolina, noted that Salvador had "sacrificed his life in the service of his adopted country." Dead at twenty-nine, Salvador was the first Jew to die fighting in the American Revolution.


Hayim Salomon, was born in 1740. He was George Washington's financial advisor. When American soldiers were freezing and running out of food and ammunition at Valley Forge, Hayim Salomon appealed to all the Jews of America and Europe to provide funding to rescue the desperate American troops. Washington's Continental Army and the fate of the American Colonies would have died before they could have beaten the British army, were it not for Salomon’s efforts.

Congress appointed him official Broker to the Office of Finance of the United States, while the French Consulate appointed him Treasurer of the French Army in America. He made available interest-free personal loans to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, General St. Clair and General von Steuben. By the time Salomon died at 45 in 1785, private individuals and the government owed him $638,000 – a debt that was never to be repaid.


Sir George Rodney: (Admiral commander of the British Fleet)

"They (the Jews of St. Eustatius in the Caribbean Antilles) cannot too soon be taken care of – they are notorious in the cause of America and France."

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 3:53:34 PM

And then there's this letter from George Washington to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island:

August 21st, 1790
To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.


While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

Interestingly, that synagogue is open to the public today. It contains an escape tunnel under the Reader's platform in case the Jews were attacked like they were quite often in the synagogues of Europe. It never had to be used for its intended purpose because America is NOT Europe, but the new Israel as the founding fathers had intended it to be.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 3:59:53 PM

What is Oswald's point? How does it change the fact that 1)the US had a founding ethny, 2)it was not simply founded upon an "idea" and 3) that ethny was overwhelmingly of British origin, (Salvador was born in London) and 4) the US Constitution was exclusionary.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 4:07:10 PM

And these quotes from President John Adams:

"He [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God."

"For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation."

"I believe [that] . . . once restored to an independent government & no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character & possibly in time become liberal Unitarian Christians for your Jehovah is our Jehovah & your God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is our God."

That last one echoes the words of Ann Coulter. Neither Adams nor Coulter harbour anti-Semitic views, but favour their own religion - and view it as the correct one - just as socialists consider their philosophy to be the correct one, and dream of the day when conservatives would "finally" agree with their opinions.

As long as violence is not used to compel either type of conversion, I have no problem with folks espousing these views.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:07:32 PM

All slaves that were freed by their owners were granted American citizenship, even as early as the 1700's - including James Armistead Lafayette who was born a slave in Virginia in 1748 and was granted citizenship in 1786.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:21:37 PM

Thomas Jefferson

"…But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements…."

[From Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1954), 84-5.]

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 4:29:42 PM

"All slaves that were freed by their owners were granted American citizenship..." Which proves what?

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 4:31:37 PM

blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:34:51 PM

Alexander Hamilton

"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson’s] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism?…

In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other."

[From Hamilton, “The Examination,” nos. 7-9 (1802), Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-), 25:491-501.]

Posted by: Dj | 2007-10-22 4:34:55 PM

blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:38:27 PM

Cartier reached Hochelaga in 1535.

Starting from the Michigan Lake, Louis Jolliet and le Père Marquette discovered the Mississipi until Arkensas in 1673. Cavalier de La Salle, in 1682, named a new piece of land "Louisane" in honour of Louis XIV.

A French Louisiana have operated until 1712 after what they've sold it to a guy named Crozat. Louisiana never stopped to speak French until the Ascadians.

In 1754, the french were fighting a tobaco grower named Washington in what was named after they rebuilt the place, Fort Duquette near Pitsburg. The rest is history.

They Later fought the Brits aside with the Americans and many have also fought in the war opposing the North and South.

The French are in the States since day one and have never left it all along it's history.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 4:56:30 PM

Then let's make French the official language of the US! Or at least equal in importance.


Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 4:59:11 PM

400 years of trying in here and it's only starting to show some good...
There's no hope there and they already choosed spanish...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 5:04:28 PM

Maybee thay shood hav choosed Inglish


By the way, interesting historical debate, obc and DJ. I agree with both of you: The United States is a historically British nation with a strong, patriotic Jewish element from the very beginning.

Here's something we can all agree on:

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-22 5:48:08 PM

I'm French - what's your excuse ?
J'aimerais bien débattre avec toi dans une langue digne de ce nom et non pas ce language vulgaire et populaire utile seulement que pour faire des affaires…

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 5:54:35 PM

The US was founded on a Judeo-Christian basis.

The Liberty Bell is inscribed with:

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof"

Leviticus XXVX

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 6:03:10 PM

Sorry Marc. "Choosed" just leapt off the page and demanded a mocking riposte. No hard feelings old chap.

BTW I see your pal Pauline is trying to steal Mario's thunder with her latest anti-immigration pronouncements. Since she's basically given up on separatism, the PQ is starting to look like the ADQ-lite. I for one welcome her turn to conservatism. What's next, tax cuts?

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-22 6:14:54 PM

JP ~

You know that socialists will never go for tax cuts. They are too stupid to see that when you cut taxes, more money is collected by the government.

Example 1.

John Kennedy in the 1960's

Example 2.

Ronald Reagan in the 1980's

Example 3.

George W. Bush in the 2000's.

They think raising taxes increases revenues. Instead, it creates tax cheaters and smugglers, thus lowering revenues while discouraging investments - also lowering revenues.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 6:25:38 PM


you're committing intellectual suicide. you've been hanging, too much, with sophomoric whining students with no "practical" life experience nor a developed capacity for empirical critical thinking.

your opinions, as i've stated before concerning you, are based on theory. everyone on this thread is trouncing your emotional arguments, so there's no need for me to get into it. you're all over the map, and not making sense. i can't tell if you are a fascist, social liberal, conservative, domestic or foreign policy neocon, libertarian, or what.

you're entering the status of "troll" on this blog. take a deep breath, get your blood pressure back down, and really think about your motives for writing this nonsense. your arguments are thin and easily refuted, so make a choice. develop a consistent line of argument, or go trolling on another blog.

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-22 6:28:09 PM

JP (or is it Jean-Philippe?),

Pauline is not anti-immigration.
She asks immigrants to learn French before choosing Québec or people who are willing to learn it. When you move to Rome, you do like the Romans.

Whether those immigrants are coming from the inside or the outside of Canada, she says.

Nothing new under the sun.

The Adéquistes are only re-cooking old stuff from the PQ in this “federalisme d'ouverture”.

One last question...Who's Mario ?
Just asking because no one heard from him since the last elections...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 6:32:30 PM

Absolutely right about tax cuts, obc. You mentioned JFK cut taxes--this is a good example for modern liberals to follow.

BTW did you check out the results of yesterday's Swiss election? The SVP won the highest vote percentage in Swiss history with a hard right platform advocating low taxes, deporting foreign criminals, no to the EU, and a big fat NO to further Muslim immigration. Maybe the Europeans are finally waking up, beginning with the take-no-guff Swiss. One can only hope.

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-22 6:48:36 PM

Obc is maybe right,
Maybe we should move far to the right and then become docile Zionists ready to accept to ruin our environment and values for the profit of foreign corporations and other crap. Ah Alberta, the place where honest people cannot afford to rent an apartment and eat in the same month.
Soon you will have to buy your water because you're poisoning your environment daily without never looking back your shoulders.

I'm impressed.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 6:49:09 PM

Mario is the Quebecois Christoph Blocher!

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-22 6:54:31 PM

obc- some are gonna be rich at the end.
This, I cannot argue with you.


JP - Don't know about those two.
If one made history, the other already is...

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 6:56:36 PM

Mark ~

When you keep using "Zionists" in your posts, we know what you mean. You are in the same league as DJ.

Just another reason I wish you'd get the hell out of my country - and take your separatist buddies with you. I can't wait for you all to leave and beg for foreign aid when the new socialist Queerbec economy collapses.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 6:58:03 PM

-Your- Country...?
Like in "palestine", you mean ?
How many Zionists are playing in the NHL ???

when YOU talk about "stupid socialists" trying to describe a people you don't even know the language - even after growing up in Mtl...
...I'm the one who knows you are in the same league as DJ.

Espèce d'ignare prétentieux.
It's ok for french Quebecers but not Zionists - nooooooooo...
Stop pelting clouds - you're ridiculus.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-22 7:11:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.