What should be the BARE MINIMUM expectations of a Mulcair government?

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

I'm amazed no one has objected to Ken Burch's profoundly multiple offensive thread title. BARE MINI-MUM indeed! What is babble coming to??

Fidel

And that reminds me. I think we should count on the NDP not embroiling themselves in corruption, general kick-back and graft, nor election rigging,  like federal governments from Mulroney's through this current one.

The NDP should set a higher standard for transparency and accountability to the public as a refreshing change in Ottawa.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I'm amazed no one has objected to Ken Burch's profoundly multiple offensive thread title. BARE MINI-MUM indeed! What is babble coming to??

Naw, not even.  I went straight to google with it and only a few mildly objectionable hits appeared.  Nothing like I thought there'd be.

Fidel

Yes if the NDP does not promise Disney World in one term, well, then, we might as well keep the corrupt stooges rigging elections and sinking us further and further down the debt hole. We'll just have to hold out for the perfect revolution is all. 

Life, the unive...

Slumberjack wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
 But lets attack the person who highlights something like this, instead of the knowing use of a term.  Pretty typical for around here.

But no one else seems to know it in the way that you describe.  Is it possible that your interpretation is simply mistaken?  Or is it just as possible that a contrived attack of your own devising has fallen flat?

Contrived attack?  Are you serious?  I have not participated in most of these threads.  I read this one out of curiosity to see what folks were saying.  With complete good faith I called someone on the use of a term that has no place on babble.  Yet somehow it was this devious plan by me to attack someone.  No wonder so many progressives have left this place.

I guess the real lesson is, not that we should always be prepared to examine our word usage, but rather whether in high school, babble or lots of other places never question the in crowd.  When you do that you are the one who is attacked.  Bullying is so cool I hope it gives you a thrill.

Slumberjack

Well, I wonder if we couldn't just apply for a ruling on the use of the term 'suckhole.'  Your Honour?

Caissa

This thread has jumped the shark. I find it unreal that we are debating the etymology and meanings of "suckhole."

ETA: unless we think that is what we be calling Mulcair after the next election as he toadys up to the corporate sector.

Sean in Ottawa

Someone found a term offensive. That finding is credible when you consider the actual words. Why are we fighting this instead of correcting and moving on? I had never heard the expression before but it does not take much imagination to see that it could be offensive.

My understanding of harassment is if a person is offended you do what you can to make it right -- stop doing it -- as opposed to belittling what the person says or suggesting that they were not serious.

I know there must be loads of history (we have seen some) but at moments you have to limit the issues to the one at hand. A person complains about the usage of a word they find personally offensive, you consider the word and try to accomodate. This is hardly an essential word.

I hope I can say this without disturbing all the muck that might lie beneath-- but we can recognize the complaint is legitimate and respond in a positive way -- can't we?

Fidel

We should demand a pony for every child under 16. And the NDP should make Canada exactly the way it was in 1867, or else it's off. 

Deal or no deal, Mr Mulcair.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi everyone! I share most contributors' ignorance of the homophobic/sexist connotations of the word suckhole. I suppose I could see how it could be considered as such, in the same way that "to fellate" and its cognates could be used almost interchangeably in that context. If this was pointed out to Unionist in good faith, perhaps even in his infamous imperiousness, he might have reconsidered its usage. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to see past LTUE's well-documented intent to point out alleged double standards at babble (cf. post #43, which precedes any moderator intervention). As it is, I don't really see the offensive content in U's post. It seems the real loser is sex; not any group of people which practices a certain form of copulation, etc.

As always, you're welcome to discuss this if you like; but please do it in another thread (like rabble reactions) or limit yourself to "see, I told you mods you were doing a horrible job"-type comments in the abuse queue and let's get this thread back on topic.

Caissa

The mods are doing a terrible job. How dare they agree with me. (Ducks since Catchfire probably hasn't drunk enough coffee yet today.) Wink

Slumberjack

In the spirit of the board, and because I happen to like L.T.U.E, I'm certainly willing to avoid any further use of the term, as I've managed to do for years until this very thread.

Fidel

And how many times did the LPC pucker-up and French kiss Harper's ass when it came down to votes in the House? It was totally disgusting and obscene after the first 50 times in a row.

Slumberjack

Say, now that's a knock about personal preferences.  What may be disgusting and obscene to you might be sheer bliss for others.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I hope I can say this without disturbing all the muck that might lie beneath-- but we can recognize the complaint is legitimate and respond in a positive way -- can't we?

Hi, Sean. This complaint comes from someone who drives by a thread, sees something negative about the NDP, and launches the most outrageous, baiting, trolling, provocative accusations, before driving back out. He did the same in the thread about Horwath when someone used the word "girlfriend". There is nothing the least bit sincere or legitimate about his trash talk. He calms down for a bit, then returns to his ways. I will never, ever respond to his baiting in a positive way. However, when he makes a serious political comment - which I must say he frequently does - I try to respond in kind. He has a lot to offer, when he isn't throwing his smelly little bombs around.

Unionist

Now, can I please get a moderator's ruling on "BARE MINIMUM"?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Ok, Unionist. You've made your point. Let's move on.

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

Ok, Unionist. You've made your point. Let's move on.

I will move on. But LTUE accused me of homophobia. I don't consider that minor. And it doesn't make for a collegial atmosphere when someone does that. That's not just "my point". Accusations like that must not be permitted here, without proof.

 

NDPP

 To put it as diplomatically as possible, they may not meet the bare minimum expectations of the people of Canada but they will more than likely exceed those of the ruling class. I predict this won't affect their future electoral successes however, since the no difference party pony has one good trick which, as things go from bad to worse, will not fail to work: 'the others are worse'. In any case NDP partisans and apologists will continue to prove them right no matter how wrong. As for the rest of us, their treacherous trajectory, of which NATO and Libya is only one of the highlights, promises their future will be much like their past. Of which this is as good an example as any:

Scenes of the Class Struggle in Canada:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/05/scenes-class-strug...

"...What is abundantly clear is that our political leaders, and remember that this occurred primarily in a minority parliament when there was or should have been, far greater oversight of the action of the Harper Tories, have decided that while we clearly have the means and the social wealth to end poverty in Canada, the far greater priority is to subsidize the liquidity of the bloated profits of our, as it turns out, incompetent and not solid financial sector.

As to the question of which side these politicians are on, they have made this quite clear, and the public is fed this not as an assault by the wealthy or the corporations on society, but as a reasonable and responsible course of action."

 

 

Life, the unive...

So typical.  Precious I pointed out you used a homophobic term, you then went on to take some pride in its use.  At no time did I say YOU were homophobic.  When the use of a similar term was pointed out to NDPP he was apolgetic and changed things.  He did not try to bully those who brought it up.  

babble is now a joke.  You are either a cool kid, or you are not.   If you are not you are subject to all kinds of bullying behaviour.  Unionist's post in 65 is complete lie and a direct personal attack and all that happens is a "move on".   I brought up both issues, because both of them are wrong.  Calling a female leader the girlfriend of another leader is absolutely sexist.  I would call anyone on it if I saw it. I brought it up for that and for no other reason.

The in crowd here is nothing but a bunch of macho wannabe cyber-bullies.  Good riddance.  You dare to call yourself progressives when really you are nothing but an echo-chamber clique.  I think I'll join all the real world activists who actually do something rather than your constant armchair quarterbacking.  What I wrote in bringing up the use of that term was almost exactly like what writer wrote in the use of the offensive term used by NDPP in another thread which was clearly a homophobic slur, if unintended.  He/she showed great maturity in how they responded and I was impressed even if I might not agree on lots of other things.  The term used there is in fact is used in very similar ways to suckhole, but the behaviour afterwards was remarkably different, including from the moderator. When I do it this is the way I am treated.  No wonder so many people have left this place over the last number of years.  It is always about playing favourites and who the moderator 'likes'.  It is so very reminiscent of high school.

Protect the bully.  After over 60 years on this planet I guess I should be used to the way these things always work, but you know I thought maybe rabble/babble would be different.  Sadly it is not.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Fidel wrote:

I'm simply saying that if it takes Steve half an hour to row the boat to the other side of the lake, we might expect Tom to take half an hour to row it back.

Then again it takes Steve far longer to cross the lake, because he only uses his RIGHT oar.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NDPP wrote:

 To put it as diplomatically as possible, they may not meet the bare minimum expectations of the people of Canada but they will more than likely exceed those of the ruling class. I predict this won't affect their future electoral successes however, since the no difference party pony has one good trick which, as things go from bad to worse, will not fail to work: 'the others are worse'. In any case NDP partisans and apologists will continue to prove them right no matter how wrong. As for the rest of us, their treacherous trajectory, of which NATO and Libya is only one of the highlights, promises their future will be much like their past. Of which this is as good an example as any:

Scenes of the Class Struggle in Canada:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/05/scenes-class-strug...

"...What is abundantly clear is that our political leaders, and remember that this occurred primarily in a minority parliament when there was or should have been, far greater oversight of the action of the Harper Tories, have decided that while we clearly have the means and the social wealth to end poverty in Canada, the far greater priority is to subsidize the liquidity of the bloated profits of our, as it turns out, incompetent and not solid financial sector.

As to the question of which side these politicians are on, they have made this quite clear, and the public is fed this not as an assault by the wealthy or the corporations on society, but as a reasonable and responsible course of action."

 

 

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...look, we GET it that you hate the NDP and think that it is a worthless organization.  You've said that over and over again(in fact, your POSTING NAME says that everytime you post).  Having made it clear to all of us that you think that...have you, yourself, done anything at all to build or help build a more worthwhile alternative?  If so...what? 

What, exactly, is YOUR preferred method here?  What do you WANT all of those who back the NDP to do INSTEAD? 

Just one...just ONCE...tell us what YOU would call for.  Tell us what OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR approach you have to offer that would create instant Utopia where everyone else has failed.  OK?

You can't JUST say "this sucks".  You've ALSO got to say "here's what everyone SHOULD be doing instead".  That's how you build alternatives...you start by proposing them.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes and Fidel has the left one. I'm loving the image of boats doing pirouettes across the water.

contrarianna

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

So typical.  Precious I pointed out you used a homophobic term, you then went on to take some pride in its use.  At no time did I say YOU were homophobic. ....

This is a distortion.
At no time did Unionist "take pride in using a homophobic term" (and to coyly say that would not constitute calling Unionist homophobic is a thin--but not uncommon-- dodge).

It is not a "homophobic term"--and certainly not in context.

Though I seldom use these metaphors myself:
Suckhole, brown-nosing, sucking up to, kiss-ass, fart catcher, etc. are all sex-alluding metaphor meaning abject subservience.

NONE of which denote in their non-metaphorical sense either gender preference, or gender identity in the relationship. Neither does it in the metaphorical use--apparent to anyone who has witnessed their application in the real world.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Ah yes...I well remember secretly reading J.D. Salinger's "The Fart-Catcher In The Rye" as a teenager.  It changed my life...but I'm stil not sure how.

NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

NDPP wrote:

 To put it as diplomatically as possible, they may not meet the bare minimum expectations of the people of Canada but they will more than likely exceed those of the ruling class. I predict this won't affect their future electoral successes however, since the no difference party pony has one good trick which, as things go from bad to worse, will not fail to work: 'the others are worse'. In any case NDP partisans and apologists will continue to prove them right no matter how wrong. As for the rest of us, their treacherous trajectory, of which NATO and Libya is only one of the highlights, promises their future will be much like their past. Of which this is as good an example as any:

Scenes of the Class Struggle in Canada:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/05/scenes-class-strug...

"...What is abundantly clear is that our political leaders, and remember that this occurred primarily in a minority parliament when there was or should have been, far greater oversight of the action of the Harper Tories, have decided that while we clearly have the means and the social wealth to end poverty in Canada, the far greater priority is to subsidize the liquidity of the bloated profits of our, as it turns out, incompetent and not solid financial sector.

As to the question of which side these politicians are on, they have made this quite clear, and the public is fed this not as an assault by the wealthy or the corporations on society, but as a reasonable and responsible course of action."

What do you WANT all of those who back the NDP to do INSTEAD? 

 

NDPP

stop backing and start fronting.,,

Boze

Ken Burch wrote:

1)NO austerity budgets;

2)NO war;

3)NO attacks on civil liberties or the right to protest.

These are something I would hope everyone can get behind, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Mulcair is just another globalist whore...I'm sorry, is that offensive? Still, we need to support the party 100% because Harper is terrible, and Mulcair will be better - how could he possibly be worse? Except, we said that about Bush, and it turns out that Obama is even worse than Bush on civil rights...yikes...but, of course, it couldn't possibly happen here, could it?

I agree with the gist of NDPP's post, but I'm not completely disillusioned. I'll work hard to get an NDP MP elected here. It'll be a two-horse race anyhow. But I'm not optimistic. From where I'm standing Canada doesn't look so different from the other countries where the left and right argue about what kind of neoliberal capitalism we will have, all entirely staged, fabricated, to create the illusion of democracy to pacify the people so that the people who own the world can get on with raping the planet.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

A Mulcair government should at the bare minimum expect that the MSM and the right wing charitable think "tanks" will mount a constant and unrelenting attack no matter what they do.  As well they should at the bare minimum expect a capital strike for their time in office.

How they will meet those realities that they should expect is the real question.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boze wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

1)NO austerity budgets;

2)NO war;

3)NO attacks on civil liberties or the right to protest.

These are something I would hope everyone can get behind, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Mulcair is just another globalist whore...I'm sorry, is that offensive?

I'd have gone with "private ejaculation contractor".

NDPP

Would it be asking too much for the ndp fandom to include on its bare minimum list an end to the slavish public bootlicking of international warcriminals like Lieberman and Netanyahu? And to mitigate their fearless leader's intention to act as 'an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Or we could just avoid metaphors which demean and dehumanize sex workers altogether. How about that?

ETA. Cross-posted with NDPP

mmphosis

Ken Burch wrote:

I'd say they should be...and these should be ABSOLUTES...

1)NO austerity budgets;

2)NO war;

3)NO attacks on civil liberties or the right to protest.

If THOSE things can't be counted on, it simply couldn't be worth ELECTING an NDP government.  Nothing could possibly make up for any of those three points being compromised-if they were, nothing different from a Harper governent could actually happen anyway.

What would anyone else say on this point?

I agree with all three.

 

Here are some more...

1.  Electoral reform.

2.  A ban on oil tankers in BC's coastal waters.

3.  Bringing the Canadian military "trainers" home from Afghanistan.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Or we could just avoid metaphors which demean and dehumanize sex workers altogether. How about that?

 

Fair enough.  My post was meant to use comedy to discourage the imagery the poster I was responding to was using.  Sorry if the way I phrased it sounded like I was endorsing such imagery.  My bad.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks Ken. I understand. I also think your three absolutes for a Mulcair gov't are attractive and attainable. In fact, they are good enough for the NDP to declare right now!

outwest

It's not good enough for the NDP to simply move forward with new policies, etc. 

I want to see retroactive turn-around on several past damaging policies and laws, including: NAFTA, firing of Health Canada scientists and park rangers, muzzling of scientists, 652 pesticides now allowed in imported food, big money for helicopters & submarines & Afganistan, etc., Kyoto, devolution of environmental responsibilities, raised age of seniors' pension, media monopoly laws, to name just a few...    

And it has to enact Proportional Representation.

There needs to be an about face on all of the above issues, or I will know that the NDP and Mulcair aren't one bit genuine.

 

Fidel

Ken Burch wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I'm simply saying that if it takes Steve half an hour to row the boat to the other side of the lake, we might expect Tom to take half an hour to row it back.

Then again it takes Steve far longer to cross the lake, because he only uses his RIGHT oar.

 

I think the NDP will have a tough slog in certain respects. For one thing it's an economy built of straw over the last 30 years with controlling interest owned by rich foreigners and mainly Americans in roughly three dozen key sectors. If they decide to squeeze our balls, it will hurt in the event of a capital strike. However, I think Ottawa should be in the driver's seat should it come down to a trade war. We are so used to Ottawa not fighting for Canadian interests when visiting Washington that the NDP should easily prove to be a different kind of government. 

As Murray Dobbin wrote recently, Canadians have been accepting less with respect to government in Ottawa for about 30 years. It's time Canadians started demanding more from government not less, and I have high hopes for the NDP. I have high hopes but I also realize that the other two parties have sabotaged a lot of oppportunities for socialism in this country with running up the debt and pawning off the family jewels and silverware to wealthy foreigners. Not everything will be fixed inside one four-year term in power. And they've been rowing and making a beeline the other side of the lake for decades.

contrarianna

Catchfire wrote:

Or we could just avoid metaphors which demean and dehumanize sex workers altogether. How about that?

....

This is as big a stretch as "homophobia".
If "sex workers" is the first, second, or third, association you make from any of the terms I use, I wouldn't call your attitude to sex workers  progessive.

Aristotleded24

Catchfire wrote:
Or we could just avoid metaphors which demean and dehumanize sex workers altogether. How about that?

Or maybe the Moderators could actually enforce the babble policy evenhandedly? This isn't the first time unionis has engaged in passive-aggressive bullying behaviour and hasn't been sanctioned for it.

"Suckholing?" Really? When I hear it, it sounds a great deal to me like an abusive parent yelling at a child and saying, "don't you go suckholing to anybody." Why is unionist so special that he can get away with behaviour so offensive where anyone else would be sanctioned?

At least have the honesty to remove the babble policy on the front page and simply say, "sanctions, suspensions, and bannings are completely at the discrestion of the moderators, without any regards to consistency." At least people would know what they're in for when they sign up.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Contrarianna, I was referring to Boze's use of "whore". Wouldn't you say that refers to sex work?

A24, I gave what I consider good reasons for my decision above. The issue is long since done with. If you'd like to insult me further, please take it to PMs. Or just do it on your own discussion board.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

Nice retort, kropotkin. But face facts. Canada isn't ready for a Tommy Douglas. Let's start simple, with maybe Bob Rae or Ujjal Dosanjh or other similar progressive types. Let's balance budgets and suckhole to foreign investors. Let's show we know how to grow the dough.

The bad guys have rowed to the wrong side of the lake. We have to row our boat gently down the stream. Verily, verily, a better world is but a dream.

From a BC perspective I think Ujjal is the poster boy for what you get when the NDP heads to the center to create a big tent party.  I voted for Corky both times he ran and was gob smacked to see a liberal get elected after Clark. The NDP membership is scared of the MSM and so the majority of them normally pick the safe bland approach.

 

Freedom 55

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Calling a female leader the girlfriend of another leader is absolutely sexist.  I would call anyone on it if I saw it. I brought it up for that and for no other reason.

 

I probably wouldn't have gone there myself, but it was building upon a previous poster's metaphor; the use of the word 'cousin' to describe the ideological kinship shared by two Tory politicians. The person you called-out applied that same metaphor to McGuinty, and then used a different metaphor to describe the newfound relationship between the premier and the leader of the NDP. 'Girlfriend' suggests that they have a substantial relationship (i.e. agreeing to keep his government alive in exchange for a few budget concessions), but that they're not necessarily committed to each other in the long run (in the way that a coalition between two parties is often described as a marriage).

But you weren't just commenting on that one post. You also used it as an opportunity to impugn the "underlying" motives of those who were critical of Horwath's handling of the budget.

contrarianna

Catchfire wrote:

Contrarianna, I was referring to Boze's use of "whore". Wouldn't you say that refers to sex work?...

I apologize. I missed the post you were referring to.

CanadaApple

I can only speak for myself, but I really hope that 2015 will be the last election in which FPTP is used. Smile Electoral Reform is my number one priority, so if a Mulcair led government can do that alone in its first term, I'd be happy. I'm not sure how realistic that is though, in terms of time.

Fidel

CanadaApple wrote:
 I'm not sure how realistic that is though, in terms of time.
 

I think a federal NDP government with a majority could make it happen.  Most Canadians want a proportional system.

Boze

How about NO attempts to regulate the internet or criminalize "piracy"? Regulate ISP's to ensure absolute customer privacy and that's it? Or would this no doubt be seen as "standing with the child pornographers."

socialdemocrati...
  1. Electoral reform.
  2. No *new* wars, and an end to whatever bullshit the Conservatives have dragged us into, within a reasonable amount of time.
  3. Ending most (if not all) of the Conservative "achievements" on immigration, prisons, corporate taxes, oil giveaways, and so on.
  4. Budgeting for expanded pensions, health care, child care, infrastructure, and renewable energy.
    OR,
    If the Conservatives have completely sabotaged the economy and the NDP inherits an economic crisis... at least 50% of debt reduction comes from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.

I don't think the NDP should spend all their political capital on foreign policy issues that we have almost zero influence on. It will take enough poltical capital just to resist the international drumbeat of war against Iran. Social justice begins at home.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

  1. Electoral reform.
  2. No *new* wars, and an end to whatever bullshit the Conservatives have dragged us into, within a reasonable amount of time.
  3. Ending most (if not all) of the Conservative "achievements" on immigration, prisons, corporate taxes, oil giveaways, and so on.
  4. Budgeting for expanded pensions, health care, child care, infrastructure, and renewable energy.
    OR,
    If the Conservatives have completely sabotaged the economy and the NDP inherits an economic crisis... at least 50% of debt reduction comes from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.

I don't think the NDP should spend all their political capital on foreign policy issues that we have almost zero influence on. It will take enough poltical capital just to resist the international drumbeat of war against Iran. Social justice begins at home.

To bad that resources for aboriginal nations to become self sufficient and self reliant is not on your list.  Social justice only begins in settler homes? 

I guess since there are not a lot of votes that turn on that issue then the amount of political capital expended should be based on that computation not our moral bankruptcy as a nation, when it comes to our treatment of first nation's peoples over the centuries and to this day.

socialdemocrati...

First, it's amazing how many people on babble get outraged over some kind of misinterpretation. "YOU FORGOT X! I GUESS YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT X! I GUESS YOU'RE AGAINST GOOD THINGS! I GUESS YOU'RE PRO BAD THINGS!"

Second, I already said that a bare minimum is a budget that includes at least SOME investments in infrastructure (among other things). It's something that every community in Canada needs: urban, rural, western, eastern, agricultural, industrial, post-industrial, AND (yes) aboriginal. Modern infrastructure improves the quality of life for everyone. And those infrastructure projects create jobs, which pulls more people out of the indignity of unemployment. The job situation is terrible, especially in aboriginal communities.

It also baffles me that dozens of other posters have said what their bare minimums are, and dozens have failed to mention additional economic resources for anyone, let alone first nations ... and yet I somehow get singled out for being complicit in our country's "moral bankruptcy". Personally, I don't think that accusation fits anyone in this community, except for those who actually say otherwise.

Finally, it's ironic how some of the people who claim to care the most about social justice seem to be incapable of basic human decency on an pro-social justice internet community. But then I remember why I don't spend as much time here as I used to.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Please try not to shout or blow a gasket. It is not in your bare minimum list and I would bet a million dollars it never occurred to you when you were thinking about your fracking list. Of course it would be far worse a commentary on your views if you had thought about it and not included it.

Actually the part of your post that rubbed me the wrong way the most was not your leaving out FN's concerns but your pathetic imperialism-lite that says social justice begins at home. Social justice is either universal or it is not social justice.  It is not social justice if you help the middle class first and delegate the poorest to after thought status. Your appropriation of the term social justice in an "only for us" context I find quite remarkable.

Mutual aid and social justice are the foundations of a just society but IMO neither one of them can apply to only your neighbours and remain progressive.

quizzical

gee colour me embarassed  i never put down First People's needs in my list and i am one. not status we don't have a treaty signed and my grandma doesn't even know what that is but registered with the gov as one anyway.

Pages

Topic locked