Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Jeff Willerton from A to Z...almost | Main | Assembly of First Nations Election Today »

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

As Quebec Goes, So Goes the Nation

Yet again:

 It might very well be time to give majority government another try in Canada.

This is a notion, new polling data suggests, to which Canadian voters are coming around in growing numbers. And with good reason. The country is now on its third minority government in the past five years, and another election looms. The political climate has rarely been more poisonous, governance more unstable, or Parliament more dysfunctional. But Quebecers, more than other Canadians, have the power to give the country majority stability.

[...]

 As noted above, Quebecers more than others have it in their power to break this log-jam, by taking a more active hand in national governance instead of "parking" their votes with an increasingly irrelevant Bloc Québécois. Had Quebecers voted for national parties in the same proportion as other Canadians in the last election, we would have a majority government. The instability of minority times makes the government of Canada weaker, which serves the sovereignists' interests but not the public interest.

The hard truth of Canadian unity, and why Quebecers "park" their votes with the Bloc, is that each of the two solitudes views Canada differently. To anglophones Canada is - save some of the more Balkanized ethnics ghettoes - their country. To francophones, especially in Quebec, Canada is simply a vehicle to advance their cultural interests. If French culture can be better preserved by keeping Quebec in Canada, so be it. If independence - or whatever half-way house euphemism the separatists are using at the moment - looks like a better option, vive la independence! 

The Bloc Quebecois is monumentally useless if your political aims is something humdrum, like forming a government. But if the goal is to extort concessions form the rest of the country, by raising the specter of national destruction, the Bloc is wildly successful. Stephen Harper has to run a national governing party. The West wants to scrap the Wheat Board and the Long-gun Registry. The typical Ontarian couldn't tell wheat from cauliflower and is terrified of being caught in a drive-by, while touring the less scenic parts of Toronto. A certain measure of negotiation and compromise is required to run so disparate a group, how much is another matter. Giles Duceppe, the longest serving party leader in Canada, doesn't have to face such wide cultural chasms. He leads a nearly monoethnic one issue, one note party where the internal debate is about when to pick up and leave. The swing voters who alternately support the Bloc, the Tories and the Liberals, aren't Canadians mulling over policy options, but foreigners in spirit trying to get the best deal. Expecting them to put Canada's interests above their parochial concerns is a fantasy.

Posted by Richard Anderson on July 22, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

You're just now figuring this out, huh, Publius? If any doubts remained in anyone's minds as to the truth of what you say, Dion's Bloc-supported coalition swept them away.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 8:13:26 AM


This partly demonstrates the problem with democracy; if a particlar group can get enough votes they can push their agenda onto other peoples that don't want it.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 8:35:15 AM


... which is one reason that a triple-E Senate is a terrible idea. It merely encourages every province to do what the BQ does and not see themselves as Canadians first, but as Newfoundlanders, Ontarians, Manitobans, Albertans, etc. all looking to advance parochial concerns to please the local voters.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-07-22 8:42:28 AM


Scott, do you have an alternative to democracy that would not be at least as bad? And Fact Check, Americans have an elected Senate and no one doubts their patriotism.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 9:26:29 AM


@ Shane //do you have an alternative to democracy //

Yes. Though I honestly think it would be lost on you if I explained it.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 9:38:47 AM


Without a Triple-E senate, Alberta would be better off sending its representatives to sit in the gallery in the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington. They'd have more influence there. No Ontarians there.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-07-22 9:57:15 AM


The comment about the West wanting to scrap of the Long Gun Registry and the Wheat Board in inaccutate at best. The past two elections of pro-wheat board directors by prairie farmers certainly disproves that; even after strong Harper government interference in the Wheat Board voting process.

Posted by: Blue Caesar | 2009-07-22 10:17:20 AM


"Yes. Though I honestly think it would be lost on you if I explained it."

Translation: You have none. None that has any hope of working the real world, anyway, and it amounts to the same thing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 10:29:02 AM


@ Shane //You have none.//

*Sigh* How long have you been exposed to libertarian ideas on this blog?

Individual liberty, voluntary interaction, the free market; superior to democracy.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 10:35:49 AM


"Balkanized ethnics ghettoes"

If you want to play on team libertarian Publius, you're going to have to drop the conservative intolerance toward people who exercise their liberties in different ways that don't mesh with the traditions you're emotionally invested in.

If people have individual liberty, they have the liberty to speak the language they want, associate with whom they want, and practice the customs they want. Those are pretty basic freedoms -- whatever Mark Stein and Jason Kenney and all the other pretend friends of liberty think. And if there is freedom of movement, they can do it where they want too.

Individual liberty, in the libertarian tradition/non-selective-based-on-favoured-conservative-traditions tradition, trumps the tribal sentiments of nationality that drive conservatives.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-07-22 10:37:31 AM


There is a difference, Robert, between questioning someone's loyalty and their rights. People who treat Canada as a multicultural hotel are legally entitled to do so - so far as they don't violate the rights of others - that doesn't mean it is culturally desirable to have a population that does not have a basic loyalty to the country. The result is not a free nation but a balkanized one.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-07-22 11:22:28 AM


"Individual liberty, voluntary interaction, the free market; superior to democracy."

Even in such a "minarchist" regime as you support, there would need to be some government. You have left unanswered the question of how that government would be selected. We are discussing democracy versus other methods for choosing governments, not the size or role of government.

So don't hassle me with your sighs, kid. You're a long way from being able to pull off the arrogant professor shtick.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 11:38:43 AM


Robert,

I'm trying to understand your position here. Are you saying that we shouldn't put any societal pressure at all on immigrants to integrate within our society and accept the very values that are the foundation of our success?

If so, I'm not sure I can stand behind that.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-22 12:14:18 PM


"do you have an alternative to democracy that would not be at least as bad?"
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 9:26:29 AM

An "Aministration" of hired managers as opposed to elected criminals would be a good start. They would be hired according to ability and held accountable for their actions.
The icing on the cake would be to have user fees in place for infrastucture as opposed to income tax that goes straight into the pockets of International bankers. (more criminals)

Of course its a tad more complicated than that...but not a lot.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-22 12:24:44 PM


@ Shane //Even in such a "minarchist" regime as you support, there would need to be some government. //

I wouldn't say we NEED some sort of government, in fact I think we'd be better off without it all together, in the meantime I am for a very small government. AND that government doesn't need to be the 51% democracy that exists now, which has a history of tyranny against minorities, oppression and corruption.

//So don't hassle me with your sighs, kid.//

Hmmm, I haven't been called "kid" in a long time...

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 12:45:30 PM


Scott,

Just for my own personal interest ... does minarchist mean an anarchist who wishes to implement anarchy is successive steps?

I always thought it meant someone who believed in a very small government, one which only existed to protect negative rights. Perhaps I was mistaken?

I am also attempting to figure out how to classify myself ;)

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-22 1:10:35 PM


I'm checking your premise on this one Publius.
Majority government is equated with stability. Quebec participated in the "stable" majority governments of Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau. The outcome was liberal, liberal-lite, and liberal left respectively. Harper's minority liberal-lite is likely better than the potential outcome of a stable majority of the other guys. If Harper got his majority through Quebec's participation why would the preconditions be any different?

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-22 1:29:15 PM


John,

My point wasn't about majority governments, it was about the lack of loyalty to Canada among the majority of people in Quebec. Even if Harper did get his majority with Quebec, the thought process behind their decision would be:

"...but foreigners in spirit trying to get the best deal."

That probably has been the attitude since at least Trudeau, some would argue even further back.

Posted by: Publius | 2009-07-22 1:37:32 PM


Jesus Christ! No wonder there is no sensible debate here. Everyone wants to argue, not debate. In a debate all sides have respect for each other's viewpoint.

This is to all that don't have open minds. You should be considered as Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters. The more you talk the dumber you sound
(You know who you are)

In my opinion (and this is just my opininion), there are two types of people in the world. Individualists and socialists or if you prefer leaders and blind sheep who can not function unless they are told what to do. What are you?

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-22 1:55:36 PM


There is a flaw in your argument. That flaw is that Quebec has supported the Liberals several times to form majorities, despite the existence of the Bloc.

The problem lies not in Quebec, but in the national parties. None of them offer a vision for Canada, but merely represent knee jerk ideologies. They spend their time arguing about the past, and not enough planning for a future.

There seems to be a profound lack of knowledge displayed here about the realities of politics in that Quebec.

The first thing to do is to remember that the majority of Quebecois are happy to be a part of Canada. It is for this reason that the referendum was twice defeated! This, despite the crazy propaganda dropped by the hard-liners, and the confusing question that eventually went to the ballot.

It was not so long ago that Francophones were second class citizens in Canada, and many alive still remember it. It took the courage of men like Chretien, Trudeau and Levesque to overcome these adversities and bring the Francophones to the rightful place of being masters in their own house. That some took this to inevitably mean that Quebec must become independent was a natural next step. However, most are happy to be Canadian.

It is up to the leaders of Canada to show initiative and get Quebecois to vote for them. Until then, Duceppes natural charm, and the fact that he will fight for Quebec in parliament, is a tough combination to beat.

Posted by: LePhil | 2009-07-22 2:02:19 PM


@ Charles //does minarchist mean an anarchist who wishes to implement anarchy is successive steps?//

I don't think that's the typical definition. In my personal case, I was once strictly a minarchist that believed in a very small government, and I have gradually moved towards an anarcho-capatalist view. As long as the state exists, I would advocate for it being small, though I don't know if it's necessary.

//I always thought it meant someone who believed in a very small government, one which only existed to protect negative rights.//

I believe this would be an accurate definition of minarchism. I know I don't always sound like a minarcist, because as time goes on I become less convinced that the government is needed for this as well. I think that some authority is needed to lock up violent criminals for example, I don't know what that would be besides government at this point.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 2:12:53 PM


J.S. Mill;

A PORTION of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others -- which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it. Geographical limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.

The Nationality Canadian cannot exist because there are various groups residing in Canada who do not share a common sense of community, of history and pride. Essentially, Canada is a land that binds ethnic groups together in grievance. They are all victims of the founding Anglo-Saxons. The French are victims, the Ukrainians, Italians, Japanese and Jews all victims. Though proclaiming their desire for freedom motivated their ancestors to come to Canada, once they experienced freedom, they did not like it. Thus they set about to pervert it in the interest of furthering their own ethnic group through a freedom crushing exercise called non-discrimination.

Canada is a nation of de facto minorities. Let's make it de jure and call it a day.

Posted by: DJ | 2009-07-22 3:04:04 PM


"I think that some authority is needed to lock up violent criminals for example, I don't know what that would be besides government at this point."

This is precisely one of the points where I simply do not agree with anarcho-capitalists.

I guess that means I'm most likely a minarchist ... still have a few things to verify before declaring that however.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-22 3:22:52 PM


"I wouldn't say we NEED some sort of government, in fact I think we'd be better off without it all together, in the meantime I am for a very small government."

Translation: You're an anarchist. Thanks for finally admitting what we all knew already.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:16:23 PM


"An "Aministration" of hired managers as opposed to elected criminals would be a good start. They would be hired according to ability and held accountable for their actions."

By whom?

"The icing on the cake would be to have user fees in place for infrastucture as opposed to income tax that goes straight into the pockets of International bankers. (more criminals)"

Either way, monies would be levied, by force if necessary.

Sorry, JC, but if you take a turd and buff it and give it a coat of wax, you are still left with...a turd.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:19:57 PM


"No wonder there is no sensible debate here. Everyone wants to argue, not debate. In a debate all sides have respect for each other's viewpoint."

Says who and based on what?

"This is to all that don't have open minds. You should be considered as Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters. The more you talk the dumber you sound."

And by open minds, you mean minds like yours, am I right?

"In my opinion (and this is just my opininion), there are two types of people in the world. Individualists and socialists or if you prefer leaders and blind sheep who can not function unless they are told what to do."

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there are two types of people in the world: those who hope they have open minds, and those who think they do. I have found the former to be much more open-minded in practice than the latter. They're also not as obnoxious, not as loud, and less likely to be carted off in handcuffs.

If you're quite done being mad at the world for not being populated entirely by duplicates of yourself, Doug, we DEBATERS will get back to our craft now, thank you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:25:01 PM


"It is up to the leaders of Canada to show initiative and get Quebecois to vote for them. Until then, Duceppes natural charm, and the fact that he will fight for Quebec in parliament, is a tough combination to beat."

Don't be naive, LePhil. Québecois will vote for whatever party they think will best represent the interests of their province, even if that representation comes at the expense of all the others. As would any other province in Confederation, had they the population to field such a significant minority. The province of Toronto(!) does the same.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-22 6:30:00 PM


@ Shane "@Shane "If you're quite done being mad at the world for not being populated entirely by duplicates of yourself, Doug, we DEBATERS will get back to our craft now, thank you.

Who said I was mad at the world. This statement seems projectionist, something I remember you acusing me of.

Wanting the world to be filled with duplicates of myself. My god, I would hate that. However fewer people like you would be nice.

"We Debaters get back to our craft?" How exactly do you define debate and debater.

FACT: Oxford Dictionary of the English Language
debate: 2b) "consider different sides of a question."

When the Hell have you ever considered both sides of a question. The only thing you convinced me of is that you never consider both sides of an argument and you're too lazy to open a fucking dictionary.

Whenever the question of drug legalization comes up you turn into "Dr. Shane Matthews," expert on any subject and savior of the universe. However, I must concede, you are the MASTER DEBATER.

@Shane"In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), there are two types of people in the world: those who hope they have open minds, and those who think they do. I have found the former to be much more open-minded in practice than the latter. They're also not as obnoxious, not as loud, and less likely to be carted off in handcuffs."

What the fuck are you talking about? What am I going to be dragged away in cuffs for? Now you just sound like a blithering idiot.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-07-22 7:25:04 PM


@ Shane //You're an anarchist//

I will define myself thanks. I'm a minarchist, and when the times comes that we have a small government, I will be an anarcho-capatalist.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-22 7:53:38 PM


Quebecers park their vote with the BQ until a Quebecer leads a national party. Those parked votes flung M. Mulroney into majorities, to name a 'conservative' and of course a number of liberal PM's.
Despite being the only truly national party, with support across the Confederation, (with the majority of seats _East_ of the ON-MB border, in contrast to the other 'national' parties which rely on the support of the major urban centers) without the Bloc vote, Mr. Harper will not gain a majority unless his party becomes the clear leader in every Province except Quebec. And Quebecers will not vote for a party lacking a Quebecer leading it. So, no matter what he does, unless and until Mr. Harpers rallies the entire Confederation (except the BQ vote) to his party we will maintain a minority.
PS: Iggy is not a Quebecer.

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-22 8:11:48 PM


As Quebec Goes, So Goes the Nation well Qiuebecers still hate self centered Harper

Posted by: Quebecer | 2009-07-22 8:12:25 PM


There is no i in Quebecer!!

We get you hate him. You would vote for a self-centered Quebecer, non?

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-22 8:36:59 PM


"Quebecers park their vote with the BQ until a Quebecer leads a national party."

You mean like for the huge support for Dion...

Posted by: Marc | 2009-07-22 10:42:39 PM


@Shane

I agree that Quebecois will vote for whomever will best represent them. However, it is possible for a party to create a vision for Canada that also benefits Quebec. For all the talk of libertarianism on this site, you seem to be forgetting the central theme, which is: "If everyone works to better themselves, they will also benefit the community as a whole."

As for my naivety. I am Quebecois, I know the politics of my province.

Posted by: LePhil | 2009-07-22 11:48:51 PM


Dana is absolutely correct. I would say about half the people I know refuse to vote for a party unless the leader is from Quebec. It's absurd but that's the reality.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-23 5:31:13 AM


Shane,

"Translation: You're an anarchist. Thanks for finally admitting what we all knew already."

So what? Or are you simply going to use this as an insult going forward ...

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-23 6:22:24 AM


"There is no i in Quebecer!!"

But there is in "Québecois." But of course it shouldn't be hard to convince them to stop speaking French...

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:31:18 AM


"Who said I was mad at the world. This statement seems projectionist, something I remember you acusing me of."

Of course! You start your post with an oath; it goes downhill from there. But you ain't mad. No sir.

"Wanting the world to be filled with duplicates of myself. My god, I would hate that. However fewer people like you would be nice."

Too bad.

"Oxford Dictionary of the English Language
debate: 2b) "consider different sides of a question. When the Hell have you ever considered both sides of a question. The only thing you convinced me of is that you never consider both sides of an argument and you're too lazy to open a fucking dictionary."

2b), huh? What's definition 1a)? Most of the definitions I just looked up go along the lines of "a discussion involving opposing points; an argument." The very word derives from Latin "battere," "to fight." You will note, furthermore, that even your quote does not mention respect; that was your own interpretation.

"What the fuck are you talking about? What am I going to be dragged away in cuffs for? Now you just sound like a blithering idiot."

You're right. At the rate you're going, it'll more likely be a straitjacket and a butterfly net.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:40:07 AM


"I will define myself thanks. I'm a minarchist, and when the times comes that we have a small government, I will be an anarcho-capatalist."

Unfortunately, Scott, you are defined by your words and deeds, not by the reputation you have with yourself. Your arguments are those of an anarchist. Get used to the word, because it describes you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:41:20 AM


LePhil, no one can serve two masters. A party that represents all provinces equally will by definition not represent Québec as well as a party that represents Quèbec only. People are selfish, in la Belle Province as well as any other, and they will pick the option they feel benefits them most. Some people will choose the smaller fruit so that others may have more, but not many.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:45:09 AM


"So what? Or are you simply going to use this as an insult going forward."

So he's misrepresenting himself, and I choose to call him on it. So he advocates no government at all, a practical impossibility, and so cannot be seriously regarded as a source of workable solutions. Nature abhors a vacuum; if he refuses to take power as a matter of principle, others will take it instead, whether he wants them to or not.

"I'm a minarchist, and when the times comes that we have a small government, I will be an anarcho-capatalist." Sounds more like he's defined by who he's not than by who he is. In that respect he is the quintessential Canadian.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 6:48:27 AM


@ Shane

So he's misrepresenting himself

I've been very clear with what my views are, you are confused.

So he advocates no government at all

Don't think I've said that. I am for small government, VERY small. I am also for self-government, and voluntary government.

Perhaps these terms confuse you,

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 7:56:56 AM


"So he advocates no government at all, a practical impossibility, and so cannot be seriously regarded as a source of workable solutions."

I consider you to be a fascist (socially and economically). That may not be how you regard yourself but that's how I see you. Since I consider fascism to be evil and destructive I will from now on no longer seriously regard anything you have to say as a source of workable solutions regarding any topic. I hope you can identify the absurdity in that statement because it's pretty much what you're saying.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-23 8:05:21 AM


"I consider you to be a fascist (socially and economically)."

Opinions are like assholes, Scott; everybody has one. They don't prove a thing.

"That may not be how you regard yourself but that's how I see you."

But not how the dictionary would define me. Or do you only turn to reference works when you think you'll like the answer?

"Since I consider fascism to be evil and destructive I will from now on no longer seriously regard anything you have to say as a source of workable solutions regarding any topic."

How many more of these rants do you think you can indulge in before everybody stops taking you seriously?

"I hope you can identify the absurdity in that statement because it's pretty much what you're saying."

You're advocating a system that has never prevailed for any length of time, anywhere, ever. Someone always comes out on top. You have nothing to worry about, though; rest assured that it will never be you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 8:24:19 AM


"I've been very clear with what my views are, you are confused."

Saying first that you are not an anarchist but a minarchist, only to then say that you are an anarcho-capitalist, and then conclude with a hybrid statement that you are a minarchist but once minimum government is achieved you will BECOME an anarcho-capitalist, is not being clear.

The dictionary defines "clear" as "certain; free from doubt or confusion, qualification or limitation." Educate yourself.

"Don't think I've said that. I am for small government, VERY small. I am also for self-government, and voluntary government."

An anarcho-capitalist synergizes the philosophies of anarchism (no government) and capitalism. So yes, in spite of what you think (on the few occasions when you can be said to think at all), you have, in fact, said that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-23 8:34:30 AM


@ Shane

Opinions are like assholes, Scott; everybody has one.

Shane, perhaps you could pay closer attention to who is writing, the person you are quoting is Charles.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-23 8:39:19 AM


What an envious bunch of square heads.

You always league together (Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Colonized federalists, Greens, Shane Matthews and neocunts) to blame Québec for everything when in fact; you are all greatly benefiting from it.

Whether it’s on political, historical, social or cultural levels; every one of you are, more often than you would admit, thankful to French Québec for saving the day. Each of you would give a dozen of your politicians for one with the integrity, constancy and authenticity of Duceppe. Of course we are voting for what is best for Québec, as a distinct nation stuck in another nation, but don’t forget we also have to compose with that same reality within our own borders. Of course we are full of flaws and contradictions but for the most, the origin is the assimilation promises that come with our association with English Canada. It is highly dishonest to blame Quebecers on the economic ground since this country was built and developed on our back for generations and the conditions forced on us are to be hold responsible for the political climate of today. It is so wrong to say that we would swing to any party that has a Québécois at his head when you all know we’re the ones responsible for the fall of the Liberal Party and the inexistent support for Dion. I believe most Québec federalists did really wished to put their faith and confidence in Stephen Harper until he revealed his real face as a new world order active member. I personally know for a fact that Iggy is made of the same fabric however, I also believe Québécers of today are much more educated, informed and politically friendly than during the last referendum so if the next one can soon come, we might very well be delivered of that two solitudes situation and that, for the good of everyone.

Posted by: Marc | 2009-07-23 2:41:24 PM


'integrity, constancy and authenticity'
Damned faint praise coming from someone using the term neocunts. Park the insults Marc or fuck off, our hostess is a lady and your remarks are out of line on her blog.

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-23 9:53:26 PM


pimf

Posted by: Dana | 2009-07-23 10:11:35 PM


Dana,

More often than not, I'm the one defending women and every of their rights against a long list of chauvinist males posting on this blog.

The term "neocunts" here was not to insult neoconservative women since I know only one, Anne Coulter, and until I see her naked in front of me, I wouldn’t bet my life on her gender.
I call "neocunts" those neoconservatives who've high jacked the Whitehouse and appeared on tv and in newspapers for the last 10 years; promoting and pushing pre-emptive wars in the middle-east based on lies and sacrificing the blood of the sons and daughters of everyone, except for their own.

So you fuck off, e-bully.
Despite, you're assumptions are often a far greater insult to our intelligence than my little term here.

Posted by: Marc | 2009-07-23 10:39:08 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.