NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

195 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky

I can't count the number of times I've been flagged by Terryt...l. It is a badge of honour for me.
Debater asks who Audrey McLaughlin is supporting. She came out for Tom a couple weeks back.
It is amusing that Althia Raj is so widely quoted by a certain person as if she is some oracle. In fact she is probably the most anti-NDP "journalist" out there.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:
I can't count the number of times I've been flagged by Terryt...l. It is a badge of honour for me. Debater asks who Audrey McLaughlin is supporting. She came out for Tom a couple weeks back. It is amusing that Althia Raj is so widely quoted by a certain person as if she is some oracle. In fact she is probably the most anti-NDP "journalist" out there.

Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppresive language

terrytowel

wage zombie wrote:

Your claim of being oppressed on a message board is ludicrous.  Flag away.

So if someone calls you names on this board, you don't mind?

terrytowel

First you say I

kropotkin1951 wrote:

insult people for calling you on it. I do understand that the moderators on this board have a very narrow definition of troll and thus they refuse to do anything about your behaviour.

But then when I get this post mocking me

swallow wrote:
Please. Joy Taylor wants you to stop spreading untruths. Factual inaccuracies make her and Audrey McLaughlin cry. Adam Giambrone says lying is not an entry-level position. 75% of Rob Ford-supporting NDP voters want you to just admit your thread title is untrue, and let the rest of the world get behind Joe Cressey's kryptonite rocket to the stars.

Your reaction is

kropotkin1951 wrote:
  I love it. Smile

Complete with a smiley face. So it is okay for socialists to insult, mock and and make fun of the non-socialist people on this board. But it is not okay for me to ( as you put it) allegedly

kropotkin1951 wrote:

insult people

Is that right?

What happened to the

kropotkin1951 wrote:
kind of respectful debate

You wanted here?

swallow swallow's picture

Terry, you are incorrect on the facts. You continue to insist on this silliness. This is troilling behaviour, I think. 

Please flag my post. I really want to be flagged too. 

-

Let's try this. 

me: I believe you are made entirely of cheese, Terry. 

Terry: I can prove I am in fact human. Here is the DNA evidence. 

me: I stand by my story. E-mail the cheese council if you disagree. WHY HAVEN'T YOU E-MAILED THE CHEESE COUNCIL!!11!!? YOU'RE OPPRESSING ME!

-

This is the level of foolishness we are now at. 

Your behaviour is making Joy Taylor cry. 

terrytowel

swallow wrote:

Your behaviour is making Joy Taylor cry. 

Pretty bad you are mocking party activist Joy Taylor, I guess when long time activists go against the party they are persona non grata.

But kropotkin1951 accusses me of insulting people, yet is silent with other socialists on this board make personal attacks against the non-socialist people.

 

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:
swallow wrote:
Your behaviour is making Joy Taylor cry. 

Pretty bad you are mocking party activist Joy Taylor, I guess when long time activists go against the party they are persona non grata.

But kropotkin1951 accusses me of insulting people, yet is silent with other socialists on this board make personal attacks against the non-socialist people.

what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

But kropotkin1951 accusses me of insulting people, yet is silent with other socialists on this board make personal attacks against the non-socialist people.

I react to you in the way I do because of the way you are. Especially your insistence on flagging everyone who doesn't like your posting style. You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

 

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I react to you in the way I do because of the way you are. Especially your insistence on flagging everyone who doesn't like your posting style.

I don't flag people who have issue with my writing style, I DO flag people who use oppresive language and launch personal atacks against me. Which I have done. You yourself used an oppressive terms against me. You think that is fine? The Mods on this board disagree.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

So it is my fault that people make personal attacks against me. I'm bringing this all on myself. Is that correct?

According to your logic, if I walk down the street without a shirt on & shake my chest in front of people. I'm invting people to attack me. Correct?

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:
quizzical wrote:
what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

spare me the falsehoods.

all of sudden you start carrying on about "socialists" and "non-socialists" here, and in another thread.

you're attempting to set up some kinda labelling dichotomy. don't.

 

 

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

terrytowel wrote:
quizzical wrote:
what's with these socialist comments you're making every 2 mins now?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

spare me the falsehoods.

all of sudden you start carrying on about "socialists" and "non-socialists" here, and in another thread.

you're attempting to set up some kinda labelling dichotomy. don't.

No just saying non-socialists here are attacked on this board left, right, center, back, forward, up & down no matter what they post.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

So it is my fault that people make personal attacks against me. I'm bringing this all on myself. Is that correct?

According to your logic, if I walk down the street without a shirt on & shake my chest in front of people. I'm inviting people to attack me. Correct?

You obviously don't understand logic very well. So no I don't agree with your illogical statement.

However if you walk down the street and poke everyone that walks by it is logical to presume some of them will poke back. Its then that you blow your whistle to call a bobby while screaming, "I've been poked I've been poked."

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

However if you walk down the street and poke everyone that walks by it is logical to presume some of them will poke back. Its then that you blow your whistle to call a bobby while screaming, "I've been poked I've been poked."

I didn't say poke, what I said was shake in front of people. The only thing that is illogical is your logic. According to you, people bring attacks upon themselves.  That people ask for it. They only have themselves to blame for being attacked. And you call yourself Social Justice? That is really shameful and appaling.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

There you go, deliberately misinterpreting my words to turn them into a personal insult against me. You don't discuss anything directly you use a posting style that is both obtuse and in your face simultaneously. When you add in your flouncing over every negative reaction to that style it tends to be  very annoying.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There you go, deliberately misinterpreting my words to turn them into a personal insult against me. You don't discuss anything directly you use a posting style that is both obtuse and in your face simultaneously. When you add in your flouncing over every negative reaction to that style it tends to be  very annoying.

Your own words

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

So according to your logic the kid is asking for it?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

According to you deliberately bugging people is alright. We get that already. Anything else you would like to add? That is what your posts read like. Deliberate attempts to provoke a negative reaction from the majority of posters on this board.

terrytowel

Nobody 'asks' for abuse back, no mater how annoying they might be. Any social justice activist realizes that.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Nobody 'asks' for abuse back, no mater how annoying they might be. Any social justice activist realizes that.

I have not said that. Once again you are changing the content of people's posts to turn them in to a slag.

Debater

nicky wrote:
I can't count the number of times I've been flagged by Terryt...l. It is a badge of honour for me. Debater asks who Audrey McLaughlin is supporting. She came out for Tom a couple weeks back. It is amusing that Althia Raj is so widely quoted by a certain person as if she is some oracle. In fact she is probably the most anti-NDP "journalist" out there.

Nicky, why don't you just agree to stop calling him "Terryt...l"?

If the two of you could resolve this issue, we could move on to focusing on the topic at hand, rather than having half the thread taken up with this back & forth between you and Terry Towel.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:
I can't count the number of times I've been flagged by Terryt...l. It is a badge of honour for me. Debater asks who Audrey McLaughlin is supporting. She came out for Tom a couple weeks back. It is amusing that Althia Raj is so widely quoted by a certain person as if she is some oracle. In fact she is probably the most anti-NDP "journalist" out there.

Nicky, why don't you just agree to stop calling him "Terryt...l"?

If the two of you could resolve this issue, we could move on to focusing on the topic at hand, rather than having half the thread taken up with this back & forth between you and Terry Towel.

I suspect that if Terry what's his name would stop opening threads like this one with an inaccurate thread title that appears to be a deliberate poke in the eye to NDP partisans then the discussion would not degenerate into name calling. When called on the inaccuracies he does not correct them which leads many people to believe it is deliberate provocation which on most sites is considered mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as "trolling").

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I suspect that if Terry what's his name would stop opening threads like this one with an inaccurate thread title that appears to be a deliberate poke in the eye to NDP partisans then the discussion would not degenerate into name calling.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Nobody 'asks' for abuse back, no mater how annoying they might be. Any social justice activist realizes that.

I have not said that.

Your own words

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I react to you in the way I do because of the way you are.

You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Please. Joy Taylor wants you to stop spreading untruths. Factual inaccuracies make her and Audrey McLaughlin cry. Adam Giambrone says lying is not an entry-level position. 75% of Rob Ford-supporting NDP voters want you to just admit your thread title is untrue, and let the rest of the world get behind Joe Cressey's kryptonite rocket to the stars. 

I love it.

Laughing

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

There you go again. In the quote above I did not say the kid asked for it. I merely described a sequence of events. You seem incapable of understanding my posts so I guess I'll just leave you to it.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There you go again. In the quote above I did not say the kid asked for it.

Your own words

bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate

They are not my words, they are yours.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I did not say they asked for it. Those are your words not mine. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

swallow swallow's picture

Nicky met the request to drop the Terry...l thing. Good. Now can we end this? 

I would never mock Joy Taylor. I have great respect for her by reputation. But I've lost respect for you, Terry, as a result of your decision to insist on a lie, over and over again, and especially your refusal to engage in good faith with other babblers. I apologize for mocking tone towards you, but it seems to be the only way to get through. 

So on topic..... No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

 No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Well said.  The cult of the leader started with Jack and Tom took it even further. The NDP needs a leadership style change and Tom is not the person to do it so he needs to go and bring in a leader who will be the first among equals in the caucus.

Debater

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

terrytowel

swallow wrote:
But I've lost respect for you, Terry, as a result of your decision to insist on a lie, over and over again, and especially your refusal to engage in good faith with other babblers.

Link please of the 'lies' I have posted here.

The only people that seem to have a problem with me are the socialist members of this board. The non-socialist memebers of this board don't feel the same way. Do you see the trend?

swallow wrote:

Nicky met the request to drop the Terry...l thing. Good. Now can we end this?

This is the first I've heard of it. Until I hear otherwise from the mods and Nicky I'm only going to assume that it is still on.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I did not say they asked for it. Those are your words not mine. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Again your words

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I react to you in the way I do because of the way you are. Especially your insistence on flagging everyone who doesn't like your posting style. You remind me of the kid in the school yard that was always running to the teacher after bugging other kids enough that they would retaliate.

They are not my words, they are yours.

wage zombie

swallow wrote:

So on topic..... No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

swallow wrote:

 No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Well said.  The cult of the leader started with Jack and Tom took it even further. The NDP needs a leadership style change and Tom is not the person to do it so he needs to go and bring in a leader who will be the first among equals in the caucus.

Updating to get back on topic. Somebody wants to keep fighting but frankly I am tired of the stupidity.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

wage zombie wrote:

swallow wrote:

So on topic..... No interest in defending Muclair's leadership, of course. I agree with the NDP youth letter -- the whole leadership style needs to change. I don't much care who the leader is, just continue to hope against hope that the party will be willing to make itself less of a cult of personality, and more the parliamentary voice of social movements that is still needed. 

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

Can you give us a quick precis of what they were saying? I promise I will not attack you if it is not 110% accurate. Are you at the convention?

wage zombie

wage zombie wrote:

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Can you give us a quick precis of what they were saying? I promise I will not attack you if it is not 110% accurate. Are you at the convention?

Yes.

Saganash spoke first and came across as an indigenous Bernie Sanders.  He talked about a few things, including calling the Trudeau govt in contempt of court.  I don't have any quotes.

Blackstock spoke next and was equally inspiring.  The line that stuck out for me was "The problem with incremental equality is that children don't have incremental childhoods."

swallow swallow's picture

Terry - no "lies" - one lie, and that's the thread title, as you've been told many times. For Nicky's non-use of the terryt..l line, see Nicky's most recent post, which did not use it. 

Inspired by kropotkin, I will henceforth stay on topic; apologies for responding to the trolling. 

Debater wrote:

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

No, it is not. 

But let's dare to hope that something else is possible. The Quebec Solidaire model is one way to go - the party could hardly be less leader-centric (no cult around Pierre-Paul St-Onge!). I don't want to believe that because something is increasingly common, it is somehow more acceptable. Support for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is also increasingly common, but presumably we'd all agree it's still undesirable. Same for the leader-obsession of the discussion around the NDP convention - there are other things that matter more than who leads. Re-imagining the way we understand leadership and participation on politics is one way to go. On that front, see some recent moves by Justin Trudeau, even. 

Debater

swallow wrote:

Debater wrote:

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

No, it is not. 

But let's dare to hope that something else is possible. The Quebec Solidaire model is one way to go - the party could hardly be less leader-centric (no cult around Pierre-Paul St-Onge!). I don't want to believe that because something is increasingly common, it is somehow more acceptable. Support for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is also increasingly common, but presumably we'd all agree it's still undesirable. Same for the leader-obsession of the discussion around the NDP convention - there are other things that matter more than who leads. Re-imagining the way we understand leadership and participation on politics is one way to go. On that front, see some recent moves by Justin Trudeau, even. 

Yes, leadership driven politics can be taken too far.  If it turns into a cult.  But sometimes it takes a leader to build a movement.  Without a leader, some movements might not happen.  Would Democratic voters be as strong in challenging the Democratic establishment right now if it wasn't for the leadership of Bernie Sanders?  A huge part of that movement is being driven by Bernie himself.

There are some societies and cultures where there is less focus on leaders and where there is more focus on consensus.  And it's interesting to see Quebec Solidaire have more than one leader so that there is not control vested all in the hands of one person.

In terms of moves by Trudeau, are you referring to his proposal to further open up political party memberships to everyone and eliminate the special member category?

terrytowel

swallow wrote:

Terry - no "lies" - one lie, and that's the thread title, as you've been told many times. For Nicky's non-use of the terryt..l line, see Nicky's most recent post, which did not use it. 

Mulcair Needs To Be Replaced As Leader, NDP Youth Wing Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/04/06/thomas-mulcair-ndp-youth-wing-co...

How is Althia Raj column any different than what I wrote in the thread title? Are you calling Althia Raj a liar as well?

swallow swallow's picture

Yes. Like it or not, Trudeau's move rethinks how we understand political participation. We need more rethinking, some of which will be good ideas and some of which will not. But's let's try to think about it. 

Technically QS has a single leader, since law requires that, but the model is one spokseperson (not the leader) with a seat in the National Assembly, and one spokesperson without a seat. This to me is a good model worth exploring - both in the way it understands leadership and political participation and internal democracy, and in the way it explicitly positions the party as one that plays a role both in parliament and in extra-parliamentary struggles. The role proposed for the NDP on several occasions, but normally rejected. 

My sense from reading the NDP youth letter is that they were thinking along those lines, too. 

Leaders may be needed, sure, but I think it is possible to move beyond leader-based cults, and I hope the NDP is able to move that way. 

(Terry, asked and answered above many times, by many people.) 

Unionist

Debater wrote:

But as many people have noted, we live in an era of leader-driven politics.

I don't.

Quote:
Don't all parties ultimately revolve around the leader today?

Parties that are worthy of being flushed down the nearest toilet, yes.

Quote:
Is the modern NDP really doing anything that far out the norm when it comes to leader-centric politics?

Those who focus on leaders are pitiable. They will never change the world. I don't frankly differentiate between self-designated slaves that follow the NDP, or Liberal, or Conservative, or Communist, or Green, or any other Dictator. Such "followers" are a far greater threat to democracy than the Trudeaus and Harpers and Mulcairs whom they follow. The devotees of the Cult of the Leader should give their heads a shake and consider that maybe, just maybe, they have their own brain and heart.

So I hope you have my answer, Debater. Leaders should go to hell - but as long as they have Followers, they will continue to flourish and destroy our world.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

terrytowel wrote:

swallow wrote:

Terry - no "lies" - one lie, and that's the thread title, as you've been told many times. For Nicky's non-use of the terryt..l line, see Nicky's most recent post, which did not use it. 

Mulcair Needs To Be Replaced As Leader, NDP Youth Wing Says

http://www.huffinugtonpost.ca/2016/04/06/thomas-mulcair-ndp-youth-wing-c...

How is Althia Raj column any different than what I wrote in the thread title? Are you calling Althia Raj a liar as well?

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Thst said, I don't care if the thread title gets changed or not. And unlike others here, I don't think you're a troll. However, I do see a tendency on your part to insist on the accuracy of a an argument or position based on the source it came from (prominent pundit, news publication, politician, ect.), without any evidence of independent thought on your own part. It ammounts to faulty logic, and it becomes very grating when almost every argument you make seems to be based on this kind of faulty logic.

Brian Glennie

Wha?

quizzical

wage zombie wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Romeo Saganash and Cindy Blackstock were both EXCELLENT this afternoon.  The video is not up on CPAC yet but I would highly recommend watching them.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Can you give us a quick precis of what they were saying? I promise I will not attack you if it is not 110% accurate. Are you at the convention?

Yes.

Saganash spoke first and came across as an indigenous Bernie Sanders.  He talked about a few things, including calling the Trudeau govt in contempt of court.  I don't have any quotes.

Blackstock spoke next and was equally inspiring.  The line that stuck out for me was "The problem with incremental equality is that children don't have incremental childhoods."

like it too

Debater

Left Turn wrote:

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Debater wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

The youth wing's original statement didn't say anything about wanting to get rid of Mulcair. It did state a desire for a different kind of leadership, but it's a leap of logic to assume that wanting a different style of leadership implies they want Mulcair gone. It's entirely possible for them to want a different style of leadership, AND to believe that Mulcair can provide it. Fyi, I don't personally believe that Mulcair can provide a sufficiently different style of leadership.

Althia Raj's mistake was in assuming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel was speaking on behalf of the entire youth wing when she said that she wants Mulcair to go.

quizzical

Debater wrote:
Left Turn wrote:
I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

bs. they're trying to spin it in a way to make it all seem negative. it's how they're choosing to portray words said.

nicky

Terry, I won't call you Terrryt...l until you lie again. deal?

terrytowel

swallow wrote:

Nicky met the request to drop the Terry...l thing. Good. Now can we end this? 

He hasn't swallow

nicky wrote:
Terry, I won't call you Terrryt...l until you lie again. deal?

terrytowel

Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppressive language

terrytowel

Left Turn and Debater thanks for your comments. Again I keep coming back to this point. The only people with an issue on the thread title are the rabid NDP partisans on this board. So again the rabid NDP partisans are the ones who are making the therad title a major issue (and taking up so much oxygen) while others who are not as rapidly partisans don't see this as a big deal. & willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. Do you see the trend?

I read Left Turn post and I respect what he says. And I can see his point of view on what he wrote. Much more than what quizzical, swallow and kropotkin1951 posted. All three have resorted to personal attacks and insults towards me. Why can't you three be more like Left Turn? His post had none of that? Read and learn from Left Turn posting style.

Left Turn states his points clearly and calmly. Without getting into the mud. Rabble would be a much better place if more of the rabid NDP partisans were more like Left Turn.

pookie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Please. Joy Taylor wants you to stop spreading untruths. Factual inaccuracies make her and Audrey McLaughlin cry. Adam Giambrone says lying is not an entry-level position. 75% of Rob Ford-supporting NDP voters want you to just admit your thread title is untrue, and let the rest of the world get behind Joe Cressey's kryptonite rocket to the stars.

I regret that I have but one +1 to give.

Late to the party, but there's another 1.

Pages

Topic locked