Eye on Outremont

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

I agree with you Sean. I think the GG acted in good (if misguided) faith and i don't believe that she was "bought off". But I also don't think that the coalition was necessarily "doomed". For all we know, it might have turned out to be a highly successful government.

madmax

Ironic that you bring up Dion.  Apparantly Dion was one of 4 MPs that Coderre was targeting to be displaced by better Liberal Candidates in Strong Liberal Ridings.

KenS

Cauchon isn't taking the easy way by running in Outremont. I think thats with his eye on running for the Leadership.

I don't think Cauchon has any interest in just being an MP. If he bumps off Mulcair, he looks real good. If he was interested in making sure he wins A seat, he'd run elsewhere.

Life, the unive...

Try to follow the thread of this discussion, Sean. This isn't about whether the coalition would have done well or badly.
I hate to be pedantic, but I thought the thread was about Outremont, or at the very least Quebec strategy, not the usual boys will be boys pissing match that seems to involve at least two of the usual suspects and just a proxy for the usual sneering, tedious spewing.

Life, the unive...

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:
other's posts and each other's opinions. You obviously have difficulty with that concept. Anyway, winter's coming. Why don't you go back into hibernation?

Thanks for proving the point I was making in the Bye thread.  And my point will be further proven when your attempts to shout down someone else is either ignored or treated with the barest slap on the wrist.

Unionist

[deleted - forgot to push IGNORE button - must work on that]

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You keep ignoring this question: if the Liberals cannot keep it together over Christmas what kind of government could they offer Canada? If they were fit to govern, they would ahve survived the 6 week breather and brought down the government then.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Jean granted Harper's request as a test of the coalition's ability to survive the Xmas season. Honestly, that makes no sense. The coalition was what... 3 days old at the time? You give her credit not only for independence of action but for some pretty incredible analytical power and gambling spirit. I think the explanation is much simpler. She does Harper's bidding every day. If the Liberals took power, she would no doubt do their bidding every day too. I think she's a tool - in the literal sense - and that's what she's paid to do.

Quote:
It is a serious, nasty allegation that someone is bought and I think you ahve to back that up. At this point it simply is not credible.

You saw something in her previous life that would predict her drooling over the Afghan mission? None of us here in Québec saw that coming. She is simply being a good employee and doing what she's told - what she's paid to do - just like reading the Throne Speech. I don't question her beliefs. What I question is that she doesn't act on her own beliefs.

 

remind remind's picture

just fiuckin lovely unionist, :rolleyes:

Unionist

You're quite right, remind, I hadn't considered that angle. Thanks for your rejoinder.

 

    Catching up on the comments to date is rather amusing.Sean from Ottawa states that Coalition would have been damaging.This is absolutely ridiculous.Either listen to too much right-wing corporate media or don't understand that the majority of Canadians would have been represented by Coalition (64%).When you look at the actions of the G-G it was obvious that she didn't take enough time to make informed decision.She could have told Harper I'll think about your request and get back to you.It was made on a Thurs.,she could have looked at her options and concluded that a Coalition would have been better for Democracy.How could this have hurt the NDP ? When we could have gotten important Legislation passed ; such as meaningful E.I. reform for workers,National child care,kelowna accord,enviromental targets,infra-structure programs and the needed support for health-care.It would have been great for the NDP and given Canadians a taste of what Fed. NDP Gov't. could accomplish while in power.

   As already mentioned she has put her foot in her mouth several times in regards to support for the war in Afghanistan and as G-G totally partisan signalling her preference for the Neo-Cons..Why ? She was part of the right-wing corporate media was she not.Example : Mike Duffy and Sandy Wallin.Peter Mansbridge writes for Macleans which is about one step from " tabloid journalism".In the final analysis G-G has been an embarrassment to Canada and shown no great intelligence in not supporting proposed Coalition Gov't. last Dec./08.

   We could have had strong Coaltion Gov't. which would have accomplished more for Canadians in this current economic recession not what we have now with Harper Neo-Cons..More announcements of infra-structure spending then has actually been done.Just like the last fiscal year when there was hundreds of miilions of dollars left-over but not put into shovel-ready projects before the recession in 2008.The Neo-Con. slush fund.

    It will be great when Canada gets the Gov't. it deserves rather then the pork-barrel politics of the Neo-Liberals and the Neo-Cons..

Sean in Ottawa

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
Try to follow the thread of this discussion, Sean. This isn't about whether the coalition would have done well or badly.

I hate to be pedantic, but I thought the thread was about Outremont, or at the very least Quebec strategy, not the usual boys will be
boys pissing match that seems to involve at least two of the usual suspects and just a proxy for the usual sneering, tedious spewing.

I am trying to decide on whether to ignore this or point out that you are being more than pedantic-- a bit of an ass really.
So you feel the need to use italics and bold to launch an attack on a person suggesting they can't follow the thread.
Well, conversations don't stay where they start-- that's why you need to follow them. People respond to what is being said.

You want to get all personal about the original topic why not go after the person who brought in the allegation of corruption launched by another post?

As for your usual suspects crap then who do you think are the usual suspects-- yeah let's get a list of the people you don't like here since you are clearly not above sneering yourself.
The thread drift was a serious allegation followed by a defence of a reputation.
So you choose to go after the defence rather than the allegation and back up your sneering with bold and italics. I wasn't being personal with unionist-- we disagree significantly on this but I respect most of what Unionist has to say but feel this allegation suggesting corruption was uncalled for and should not be left unresponded to-- that was where the drifted conversation began.
And if you want to start policing responses to things as contributions to thread drift you are going to be very busy but expect some blowback when you arbitrarily single one person out for your own brand of hypocritical sneering.

As for this proxy shit I have nothing against Unionist nor any ongoing agenda against anyone here, except perhaps you now.

Life, the unive...

Sean, I was trying to quote without a big long thing.  Sorry, some of us don't spend our every waking moment on babble and aren't always sure how the various functions work so I just used all the options to make it clear it was a quote.  And if you want to be specific I was refering to the sidebar attack not the comments you made.  It is always a sneering attack whether it against a babbler or a public figure and it is just goes on and on and it comes from all sides - just replace Jean with May, or the NDP with Green or what have you and the boys will be boys club starts duking it out.  And then there is the sanctimonius lecturing of who and how someone is supposed to participate or in the follow up comments- now deleted- made not being on babble at all.

Sean in Ottawa

My point on the coalition remains that Jean could have been concerned about its stability-- this is but one reason other than corruption that could have lead to the decision -- you don't have to agree with this analysis-- to allow that it may have been a motivator for her.

Aside form that I think it is truly remarkable to see so many people here thinking that the Liberal party could have led a stable government (remember NDP less than 40 seats)-- that party has proved that they are not stable coalition partners, cannot be trusted and are incapable of avoiding tearing each other up to actually do anything else for any length of time. The suggestion that they could keep it together if only they had power is ridiculous-- back to the thread topic-- look how they managed to screw up on the same day as their no confidence motion by blowing up in Quebec. The quoted comments out of this will almost certainly show up in advertising in Quebec and will change the landscape there if not across the country as Ignatief is shown to be a loser-- so when a lot is at stake -- the internal bickering trumps unity.

I was in favour of the coalition in theory. I supported it as long as the Liberals looked like they were going to possibly function well enough as partners. Then I saw that the Liberals were not going to be able to manage and the coalition was doomed because of them. The two-faced bastards went back on the agreement almost when it was still wet. The NDP needs to keep touch with reality sometimes. This particular reality is that the Liberals -- at least for now-- are so busy destroying themselves that they cannot be coalition partners, cannot govern and the NDP should keep a distance.

The coaltion was a betrayal of an agreement by a party that in restrospect should not have been trusted in the first place. Where is this longing to work with these people-- and why is it coming from people who don't normally like or trust Liberals in the first place? the same who say they are no different from the Cons?

Sean in Ottawa

Interesting how the coalition experience which some argued was not relevant here actually says exactly the same things about the Liberal party that the Outremont thing does.

Also interesting that the fight would be over a seat not held by the Conservatives, the party the Liberals say they want to defeat but another opposition party.

After the Liberals spend all their energy fighting the NDP and their own party they have nothing but worn down claws and chipped off teeth and no real interest left for fighting the Cons.

It is funny-- I have been reading a lot of Chinese history. During the second world war the Allies-- United States in particular were supporting the Chinese with equipment to fight the Japanese. The nationalists accepted the money but instead of using it to fight the communists they ran away from them and used the resources to fight the communists. Over time the allies got to see this and realized they need to support the communists if they wanted the bullets they were sending to fight the Japanese instead of landing in the backs of other Chinese. In spite of being the most powerful force in the country, the Nationalists managed to lose the respect of the western allies as well as the Chinese people who saw the Communists alone fighting the enemy. Eventually, some within the Nationalist party participated in a kidnapping of their leader to persuade him to fight the Japanese-- of course the bickering did not help. In the end the Chinese people rallied around the Communists for fighting their common enemy-- the Allies supported the communists with equipment for the rest of the war and the Communists went on to reducing the Nationalists to a rump.

Now, I don't want to compare the NDP to the Communists since the parties are very different but the behaviour of the Liberals should look familiar in the above story and of course it will take an atom bomb to defeat the Conservatives or at least cooperation among those that are fighting against them or perhaps the elimination of the one who does not keep its word and fight the common enemy.

Since we are nearing October 1st, the 60th anniversary of how that all ended up I figure this story might be appropriate.

The drift to China might be forgiven as relevant here since I am really not talking about coalitions or China but the character of teh Liberal party even if it can be seen in a story about China.

Stockholm

One of the best things about the coalition is that the Liberals would have been in such disarray and so weak that the NDP would have provided the only real stability in government. The NDP could have called the shots. Ignatieff has no agenda and no ideas - I'm sure layton would be happy to tell him what to do...Iggy seems very open to suggestion from others!

David Young

Getting back to Quebec issues...! (There are other threads to discuss Iggy issues, aren't there?)

Does anyone think that (if there isn't an election soon) this internal squabbling by the Liberals will give the NDP an even bigger boost in the potential by-election in Hochelaga?

With Rocheleau being the first candidate nominated, plus having already run once there, it would appear that internal dissent by the Quebec Liberals would be a boost to the NDP campaign.

 

Unionist

One reason I - and many others in this multi-national riding - voted for Mulcair in the 2007 byelection was his uncompromising stand on withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Which leads me back (sorry folks) to Michaëlle Jean:

Quote:
Shortly after signing on as official patron of the Olympic Truce for the 2010 Winter Games, Governor-General Michaëlle Jean rejected a suggestion yesterday that a truce be imposed on Canadian military action in Afghanistan for the 17 days of the Olympics.

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jean-rejects-afghan-truce-d...

I'm sure that's her own opinion and she never took any guidance from Harper on that.

 

Bookish Agrarian

Unionist I know I am on your ignore list, but if you happen to see this - I want to thank you for posting that article. 

West Coast Lefty

David Young wrote:

Getting back to Quebec issues...! (There are other threads to discuss Iggy issues, aren't there?)

Does anyone think that (if there isn't an election soon) this internal squabbling by the Liberals will give the NDP an even bigger boost in the potential by-election in Hochelaga?

With Rocheleau being the first candidate nominated, plus having already run once there, it would appear that internal dissent by the Quebec Liberals would be a boost to the NDP campaign.

 

I agree DY - the 2 Quebec by-elections will be a good test of Iggy's real popularity in Quebec and the supposedly revived Liberal machine in the province.  The BQ is still strongly favoured to win both seats but the NDP should have a good showing in Hochelaga with Rocheleau.  I also predict the Cons will do better than expected in Paul Crete's old federal riding - I believe they are going to run a former mayor of one of the municipalities within the riding boundaries.

Stockholm

hmmm....just think four byelections this fall and in all four of them, there is a good chance that the Liberals will finish 3rd or even 4th in all four of them.

Unionist

West Coast Lefty wrote:
  I also predict the Cons will do better than expected in Paul Crete's old federal riding - I believe they are going to run a former mayor of one of the municipalities within the riding boundaries.

You may be right, but I'm hoping for a repeat performance of their catastrophe in Rivière-des-Mille-Isles, where they also purchased themselves a very popular mayor (of St-Eustache, no less), but he went down hard to first-time BQ candidate Luc Desnoyers - who had just retired as the Québec Director of the CAW:

[url=Rivière-des-Mille-Iles:">http://lechodunord.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=71609... Luc Desnoyers élu[/url]

Quote:
Un nouveau député dans Rivière-des-Mille-Iles, mais toujours sous la bannière du Bloc québécois. Le syndicaliste Luc Desnoyers l'emporte plus facilement que prévu sur le maire de Saint-Eustache, Claude Carignan, qui était le meilleur espoir des conservateurs dans la région. Avec moins de 20 % des suffrages, ce dernier obtient 13 305 voix de moins que le bloquiste.

West Coast Lefty

Good point, Unionist.  What's your sense of the engagement/motivation of BQ supporters and activists these days - given Marois' dismal performance as PQ leader and the PQ's return to the "beau risque" strategy that so divided the party in the mid-80s?

Unionist

Quebeckers' ability to separate their federal and provincial voting intentions is the stuff of legend. The federal Liberals' collapse in the wake of the sponsorship scandal wasn't seen as Charest's downfall (notwithstanding his reduction to minority government for lots of other reasons). Nothing federally parallels the precipitous rise and fall of the ADQ. So, people I know (mostly urban voters, but not exclusively) don't think about Marois's plight when thinking federal. Duceppe has done nothing disastrous since playing so skillfully last year on Harper's ill-concealed ultra-right instincts. He and the Bloc are still seen, by a plurality anyway, as Québec's best (and vaguely social democratic) bargaining weapon in Ottawa. They lost support to Mulcair in my riding, but the NDP would have to really "stand up for Québec" (in ways that they have never done collectively) in order to make more serious inroads into BQ support. The Sherbrooke Declaration was a fine start, but they're obviously afraid that if they flaunt it, someone in ROC might find out...

In the regions, of course, the dynamic is quite different, but I see no signs of Bloc support leaching toward the Cons.

I'm not an electoral politics geek, so the above is purely impressionistic, and largely based on trade union sisters and brothers plus neighbours and friends. In the union movement, support for the Bloc is as strong as ever. I defer to other babblers for a more scientific (and likely more accurate) assessment.

 

KenS

From an electoral politics geek: don't know enough about the subtelties of inclinations in Quebes, but that sounds consistent with how the dynamics generally work.

Socrates Socrates's picture

Breton was at Convention and does intend to run again, for now at least. LeProhon will be an interesting match-up but keep in mind that the real competition is the Bloc who currently hold Jean-Le-Ber. LeProhon was a formidable adversary when she was the protege of the Quebec Lieutenant. Now that that is no longer the case she doesn't seem very strong to me.

My Liberal sources tell me that the official story about this Coderre/Cauchon dust up is BS. Apparently Cauchon was at the Liberal Convention six months ago talking about his intention to run in Outremont.

I think Cauchon is in for a rude awakening. Mulcair's consituency staff are excellent and his organization is well staffed and well run. Also, in the face of this challenge, many Quebec NDP operatives and volunteers that might have taken the riding for a lock will be going there to work next election, myself included.

The downside is the perceived need for support in Outremont will bleed workers, and to an extent money, from other races in Quebec.

KenS

Apparently there will be a contested nomination in Jeanne-Le Ber if Sébastien Dhavernas does go ahead and contest it.

I didn't know anything about him when he ran last time in Outremont, and still don't.

Interesting at any rate.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/200910/02/01-908075-jeanne-le-ber-les-liberaux-lorgnent-sebastien-dhavernas.php

A television star would seem a better candidate for the riding than an economist. But if LeProhon doesn't get it by appointment I would rather expect she'll feel kicked around.

autoworker autoworker's picture

As far as the Outremont story goes, dinner has yet to be served. The latest shenanigans, from our favourite butler (as opposed to 'head waiter') in the LPC, is just an appetizer for the early arrivals, the main course, and the entertainment, is still being prepared .  Now that it's been established that Martin Cauchon is the preferred candidate of the Quebec Establishment (et-tu Brute?), in, arguably, the most bourgeois, Federalist, francophone riding in la belle province, it's a foregone conclusion that the political winds have shifted.  Poor Mulcair, he seems like a nice fellow, but let's face it, he's an anomaly in Outremont (he's an anomaly in the NDP, for that matter).  If the Dippers hope to build on their 'breakthrough' in Quebec, they'd do best to look no further than the West Island, whose disgruntled Anglos still remember that their 'traditional' representation was dropped from Charest's Cabinet (je me souviens). All in all, isn't it comforting to know, in a world of anarchy and chaos, that some things never seem to change.  Or in the immortal words of Don Cherry: "It's deja-vu all over again"....

Unionist

autoworker wrote:
... arguably, the most bourgeois, Federalist, francophone riding in la belle province, ...

You know, I agree with much of you've been posting lately, but are you perhaps thinking of another riding? Outremont is on the low scale of "bourgeois, Federalist, and francophone". No time for detailed references, but start with Wikipedia:

Quote:

  • Ethnic groups: 72.5% White, 5.6% Black, 5.1% South Asian, 4.3% Arab, 2.7% Filipino, 2.7% Latin American, 2.5% Chinese
  • Languages: 44.8% French, 14.3% English, 37.7% Others
  • Religions: 46.6% Catholic, 10.2% Jewish, 8.1% Muslim, 7.0% Christian Orthodox, 4.9% Protestant, 3.0% Hindu, 1.9% Buddhist, 1.6% Other Christian, 16.1% No religion
  • Average income: $31,010

As for "federalist", I voted Bloc in the 2006 election, and my candidate came within 1000 votes of unseating a Liberal cabinet minister. When I voted Mulcair in the next two elections (byelection and general), I can assure you his win had nothing to do with his views about federalism.

ETA: Hey sister/brother, are you perhaps thinking of the city of Outremont as opposed to the riding??

Unionist

Not sure I understood any sentence in that last post, AW, but I just thought I'd explain a little about my riding, which you seemed to have a wrong impression about - especially given that Outremont is the topic of this thread.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Perhaps, dear Unionist...but I'd never vote for separatists.  As for your demographic, Westmount riding included St. Henri, but always voted Liberal. Averages are decieving.  Moreover, unionionists in Quebec, like yourself, are solidly Bloc supporters.  I wouldn't expect that you'll be getting out the vote for Mulcair (I doubt that he'll be endorsed by the FTQ).  Anyway, I apologise for upsetting your sensibilities, while I'm saddened that I failed, in your estimation, although I would guess that a good portion of your  riding's demographic doesn't vote at all-- but the portion I was thinking about does, and in  what I presume is a plurality that also contributes financially to their preferred candidate.  Nonetheless, I promise to redouble my efforts and apply more rigor to any subsequent analysis. As for Charest, is he really a Liberal?  Ask Mulcair.

autoworker autoworker's picture

So, dear Unionist, will the FTQ endorse Mulcair?

Unionist

No, we separatists will never endorse anything that looks good but which might divert us from our mission of destroying Canada. In fact, when they found out I had voted for Mulcair, my union organized a mob which is still staking out our apartment as we speak. Geez, that's a ptichfork - right through my keyboard - I'll hv t gt bck t u ltr...

autoworker autoworker's picture

Topic for next thread: "Unionist Forked in Outremont!"

Stockholm

I wonder if "autoworker" is someone who drives an "auto" to "work" at Liberal Party of Canada - Quebec Section HQ?

janfromthebruce

hey Unionist, your brother/sister sure doesn't talk "solidary forever"

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

hey Unionist, your brother/sister sure doesn't talk "solidary forever"

*&) &^%$ #(*$& cnt gt ths dmnd thng 2 work I'll - oh, WHEW, the keyboard has recovered!!

Yeah, I wouldn't want to draw any premature conclusions about autoworker, but it certainly would seem preferable to sit back and find out a little about Outremont and Québec before saying such odd things and making provocative comments - especially when they only have a few babble posts under their belt, though I think "finding out before speaking out and acting out" could well be a good guide to us all... Similar to, "look it up, don't make it up..."

Anyway, I have to get back to watching the stalkers outside my window...

 

janfromthebruce

yes unionist, be careful - they are coming to get you - ha ha, ha ha

Wilf Day

This being the default thread for Ignatieff's lack of a Quebec lieutenant, I thoght I would advise babblers who weren't just watching Newsworld of two things:

1.  In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant? This man has more lives than a recycled cat.

2.  Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.

autoworker autoworker's picture

I didn't think seniority counted in here. As for solidarity, I don't sympathize with separatism.

Unionist

autoworker wrote:

I didn't think seniority counted in here. As for solidarity, I don't sympathize with separatism.

You don't have to sympathize with separatism, but if you make stuff up about things you obviously know nothing about, be prepared for others to helpfully set you straight.

Not sure why you mention seniority - are you concerned about getting laid off, or just bumped?

 

janfromthebruce

unbelievable Wilf - doesn't the lib leader read any press or his advisors tell him to tone down his "all about me.com" ego? LOL - Iggy is political stupid and lacks social intelligence!

SCB4

Wilf Day wrote:

1.  In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant? This man has more lives than a recycled cat.

 

Right about what? What was the context for that remark?

 

Wilf Day wrote:

2.  Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.

 

Yeah, that sounds about right. A bread and circuses platform fits in well with Iggy's imperious style.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

1.  In Ignatieff's closing speech to the convention, the only member of the Quebec caucus he introduced (on camera, at least) was Stephane Dion, with the comment "Stephane was right." Dion got a huge ovation. Is he the new Quebec lieutenant?

And does this mean reversing gears on coalition? What was Stéphane "right" about?

Quote:
2.  Ignatieff wound up with an appeal for Canadians to recognize world-class Canadians like globe-orbiting Cirque du Soleil founder Guy Laliberté -- "and me." Michael, you're no Guy Laliberté.

No, but maybe it's time he checked out space.

Thanks for the update, Wilf.

ETA: Gee, I crossposted with SBC4, and we said pretty much the same stuff... Pass the Koolaid jug, please.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Who's making stuff up?  Look at what's really going on in the riding that you know so much about, and I so little.  Why Cauchon? Why Outremont? Why now?  I envy you, dear Unionist, your riding is much more interesting than mine.  By the way, how's Justin Trudeau doing accross the way?  He did quite well, I'm told.  Marlene Jennings is solid in N.D.G.  How's the Bloc doing in T.M.R.?  You're right, the facts speak for themselves.

remind remind's picture

What convention?

Unionist

Now I'm more confused than ever. See how little it takes? I'm off to take a walk. I'll check in on Justin Trudeau (actually, make that the Métro...) and TMR (whoops, bus ride), and see if Marlene has kicked out that a-hole Del Negro yet, and... Hey, why do I have to do all this? We don't even have any auto workers left in Québec since they shuttered and then tore down the GM plant in Boisbriand...

 

Wilf Day

Ignatieff spoke to about 1,000 Liberals today at a convention of his party's Quebec wing.

Quote:
He said a Liberal government would make a point of investing in green technology . . .

That's what he said Dion was right about -- green jobs, and so on, not very specific.

A new president of the Quebec wing of the LPC will also be appointed, it is Marc Lavigne, former chief organizer of Stéphane Dion during the leadership race of 2006.

Stockholm

Maybe Lavigne can work the same "magic" for Iggy that he worked for Dion! (we can only hope)

Socrates Socrates's picture

Not sure where you're from autoworker, but your knowledge of Quebec ridings is stretched. Westmount is in the federal riding of Westmount-Ville-Marie. St. Henri is in Jean-Le-Ber. Also lots of soft sovereigntists in Outremont who support Mulcair as better than a Liberal.

 

Unionist

Don't know what you're talking about. Personally, I'm as corny as Kansas in August. You're questioning my patriotism? I'm as high as the flag on the 4th of July. If you'll excuse the expression I use, I'm in love with a wonderful Gilles Guy!

 

Pages