# NDP whining



## x westie (5 Mar 2006)

On CTV, this morning Jack Layton whining that our troops in Afghanistan are in fact in a war and that this is not in the Canadian tradition of "peacekeeping blah blah". No consideration or condolences to the fallen and their families,this guy needs a wake up call


----------



## Korus (5 Mar 2006)

> not in the Canadian tradition of "peacekeeping blah blah".



I could have sworn that was the point that we (the Army) has been trying to push for a qhile now...  :


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

What!?

The NDP not supporting the military? When did this happen?

Jack is just upset because the BQ-Conservative axis has expelled him from the "fulcrum" position he occupied in the Martin Government. He no longer has any way to stay in the public eye, and as such, must be "anti" something to get any attention.

He reminds me of the puppy that gets upset when ignored, and pees on the rug.


----------



## medicineman (5 Mar 2006)

To quote the Royal Canadian Air Farce - "NDP stands for "Not Destined for Power"".

MM


----------



## Koenigsegg (5 Mar 2006)

I have cats that pee on the carpet when they are ignored for a long time.  So maybe Layton is a p***y who pees on the carpet?
One would think a politician would at least to get the real mission of the armed forces out, and known to the public.
Heh, if the NDP got into power, after that last thing he said the CF would be called humitarian aid providers,  we would not even have a military.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Mar 2006)

Just saw it on the news...what an idiot.


----------



## MikeM (5 Mar 2006)

+1 on being an idiot.

Jack Layton needs to wake the fuck up.


----------



## QV (5 Mar 2006)

As I slowly woke from a long comfortable sleep I reached for my remote control.  Gingerly I turned on the television and switched to CTV News Net.  Low and behold the first thing I see while still in my dreary state of semi unconciousness is Jumping Jack Layton whining about the current situation in A'stan.   Tool.


----------



## RangerRay (5 Mar 2006)

Is anyone surprised by what these commies say?


----------



## armchair (5 Mar 2006)

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton is one of those who are calling for a debate, or even a vote on the issue. He said the situation in Afghanistan has evolved, and Canada's involvement should be re-evaluated as circumstances change.

"We certainly don't want to become involved in a protracted war. The role of Canada being in Afghanistan was more of a traditional role, peace-making, peacekeeping, but to extend it into a more war like position -- a lot of Canadians have concerns with that position and we have concerns with that position
quote from CVTwebsite


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Mar 2006)

NDP = No Defence Party
NDP = Non Democratic Party (AKA Communist)
NDP = Notoriusly Dumb Party
NDP = Never Delivery Party


----------



## armchair (5 Mar 2006)

The Full StoriForeign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay says he stands behind Canada's troops in Afghanistan, and said it is important to ensure the nation's support is unwavering.

MacKay made the comments on CTV's Question Period on Sunday. He was responding to critics who suggest Canada's commitment to Afghanistan should be taken to a parliamentary vote.

MacKay said Canada has pledged its support to NATO's work in Afghanistan, and intends to follow through with it. He also said that questioning the decision now could be devastating to Canadian troops who are risking their lives in the field.

"The last thing that we want to show is any wavering or any backing away from the commitment of our Canadian troops," MacKay said. "We have to be 100 per cent behind them. We have to demonstrate in every way that we support the important work that they're doing. And to that extent, this government is 100 per cent behind our troops and appreciative, incredibly appreciative of the effort that they're making." 

With danger increasing in Afghanistan, and troops experiencing casualties in recent days, some are having doubts about Canada's role.

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton is one of those who are calling for a debate, or even a vote on the issue. He said the situation in Afghanistan has evolved, and Canada's involvement should be re-evaluated as circumstances change.

"We certainly don't want to become involved in a protracted war. The role of Canada being in Afghanistan was more of a traditional role, peace-making, peacekeeping, but to extend it into a more war like position -- a lot of Canadians have concerns with that position and we have concerns with that position," Layton said. 

MacKay said the government is considering opening the issue for discussion, but not likely to a binding debate or vote. He said it may have been more helpful to have debated the issue before the decision was made by the previous government.

"The previous commitment did not come to Parliament in the form of a formal vote," MacKay said. "There was a take note debate. We are contemplating this issue very seriously. It's always preferable before troops are deployed to have a vote."

New Democrat MP Alexa McDonough said she doesn't challenge the country's nine-month commitment to work with NATO in Afghanistan. But said it's time to give Canadians the chance to weigh-into the debate about whether troops should be committed long-term. 

"We're in a war," McDonough said. "The Canadian people have had no opportunity to be seriously represented in any serious debate about what we're doing there, let alone a vote in Parliament, so a take note debate is simply not going to do it."

Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who was the parliamentary secretary responsible for Canadians abroad under Paul Martin, said Canadians considered the Afghanistan issue when they voted in the January election.

"Canadians understand our commitment to Afghanistan has to be firm and unflinching," McTeague said.

However, he said a debate could be helpful in determining whether Canada should extend its role in Afghanistan into the years ahead.

User Tools
Print This Page 
E-Mail Story 
CTV WEBSITE


----------



## Big Foot (5 Mar 2006)

Link to the above article:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060303/afghan_mackay_060305/20060305?hub=Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What!?
> 
> The NDP not supporting the military? When did this happen?
> 
> ...



We call them yappy little ghetto dogs.


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

N - No 
D - Decent
P - Position


----------



## James (5 Mar 2006)

Yikes... well, I did vote NDP in the last two elections...  :'(  But you guys are right. The military is the one area that I completely disagree with the NDP on. Like the Liberals, they view the CF as a peacekeeping force.

I find it kind of funny how Jack said we were there in the traditional role, peacekeeping/making... What was JTF doing with the other SOF?


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

James said:
			
		

> Yikes... well, I did vote NDP in the last two elections...  :'(  But you guys are right. The military is the one area that I completely disagree with the NDP on. Like the Liberals, they view the CF as a peacekeeping force.
> 
> I find it kind of funny how Jack said we were there in the traditional role, peacekeeping/making... What was JTF doing with the other SOF?



Do you think that here will be a JTF if the NDP ever get into power?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Do you think that here will be a JTF if the NDP ever get into power?



YES, they will be called the *J*ust *T*hank *F*riends, and they will be the world's only Tier I Special Feel Good Forces unit.

They will free fall from hot air balloons while distributing love and happiness on the point of a truck loaded with foreign aid. They will speak every language used in Canada, be half female and the other half gay and visible minority, and will never use guns, instead linking their arms in peaceful opposition to terrorism.

 :


----------



## larry Strong (5 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> YES, they will be called the *J*ust *T*hank *F*riends, and they will be the world's only Tier I Special Feel Good Forces unit.
> 
> They will free fall from hot air balloons while distributing love and happiness on the point of a truck loaded with foreign aid. They will speak every language used in Canada, be half female and the other half gay and visible minority, and will never use guns, instead linking their arms in peaceful opposition to terrorism.
> 
> :



What happens when they lose their "Mojo" baby ;D


----------



## Juvat (6 Mar 2006)

It is true that the NDP does not have a very progressive and military friendly mindset, however to criticize a party solely on their position with the military is unfair.

True, the NDP has wavered slightly in the past election on some election promises, but so have the other parties.  The NDP will never get into power, they just don't have the support for it.  I voted for them, but would never want to see them run the country.  They are there, in my opinion, to provide the country with a social conscience, that is it.

That being said, their defence position, or that of Afghanistan for that matter, is sorely out of touch with what Canada needs.  But bringing the issue to a debate is not a bad idea.

Just my two cents


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Mar 2006)

Anyone who is a soldier and votes NDP should definitely take a hard look in the mirror! This is a party that will cut our budget so quick it would make your head spin! The combat arms would be GONE, done like dinner, with the remainder of the Forces losing all personal weapons. No more supporting our allies like Britain, US and Australia, we'd be tagging along with those hotbeds of democracy(courtesy of the UN) China, Russia and Cuba. The only overseas tours would be humanitarian relief, don't even consider the possibiltiy of fighting anything! :threat:

The NDP is a useless, arrogant, communist, out-of-touch hangout for ex-hippies and other far-left lunatics! F*ckin losers!


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (6 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What!?
> 
> The NDP not supporting the military? When did this happen?
> 
> ...



Damn that gave me a good laugh.


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> YES, they will be called the *J*ust *T*hank *F*riends, and they will be the world's only Tier I Special Feel Good Forces unit.
> 
> They will free fall from hot air balloons while distributing love and happiness on the point of a truck loaded with foreign aid. They will speak every language used in Canada, be half female and the other half gay and visible minority, and will never use guns, instead linking their arms in peaceful opposition to terrorism.
> 
> :



Sounds like the Carebears....awesome..

Layton's a tool....wait....no one's paying attention to me, what can I do now?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (6 Mar 2006)

Insert Quote
"Anyone who is a soldier and votes NDP should definitely take a hard look in the mirror! This is a party that will cut our budget so quick it would make your head spin! The combat arms would be GONE, done like dinner, with the remainder of the Forces losing all personal weapons. No more supporting our allies like Britain, US and Australia, we'd be tagging along with those hotbeds of democracy(courtesy of the UN) China, Russia and Cuba. The only overseas tours would be humanitarian relief, don't even consider the possibiltiy of fighting anything! 

The NDP is a useless, arrogant, communist, out-of-touch hangout for ex-hippies and other far-left lunatics! F*ckin losers!"


Could not have said it better myself!!!


----------



## aluc (6 Mar 2006)

Can anyone imagine  what this country would be reduced to if they ( lol) were ever to gain power?  Ooohh I just got goose bumps! I think I would leave, or maybe just move far away from any urban centre in Canada.


----------



## Jaxson (6 Mar 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Sounds like the Carebears....awesome..
> 
> Layton's a tool....wait....no one's paying attention to me, what can I do now?



Even pylons Need someone to pay attention to them   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2006)

aluc said:
			
		

> Can anyone imagine  what this country would be reduced to if they ( lol) were ever to gain power?  Ooohh I just got goose bumps! I think I would leave, or maybe just move far away from any urban centre in Canada.



Look what happened when they gained power in Ontario. Totally trashed it, like drunken college students.


----------



## chanman (6 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Look what happened when they gained power in Ontario. Totally trashed it, like drunken college students.



At least Ontario didn't end up with fast ferries.  I remember them being far over budget when only one had been finished and the other was less than 40% completed. urrrrrgh


----------



## RangerRay (6 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Look what happened when they gained power in Ontario. Totally trashed it, like drunken college students.



They had a decade to bring BC from best economy in the country, to worst economy and have-not status.

We're still climbing out the hole.


----------



## corbo (7 Mar 2006)

E-mail Jack Layton with your concerns ,he should know there are supporters of our men&women in uniform wherever they are.


----------



## armchair (7 Mar 2006)

corbo said:
			
		

> E-mail Jack Layton with your concerns ,he should know there are supporters of our men&women in uniform wherever they are.


I have to agree if you are concern that the NDP are not supporting the troops them e-mail them:
http://www.ndp.ca/contact


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2006)

Well, now I'll just sit back and wait and see if they answer. :


----------



## Pike (8 Mar 2006)

Jack Layton isnt whining. He represents a significant portion of Canadians who believe there should have been a public debate over this. Unfortunately it is too little too late. The debate should have been before the Liberals decided we should go in there.

Anyway, dont take it as whining. hes doing his job. I respect that.


----------



## Big Foot (8 Mar 2006)

Pike, publicly undermining the confidence of our troops overseas is not just whining, it is degrading morale of our soldiers doing the job the LIBERAL government asked them to do. Jack Layton must realise and respect this fact, plain and simple.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2006)

He should have asked for a debate when the Lieberals launched us if he is serious. Guess he was to busy being Martin's yappy little lap dog, doing tricks for his bacon treats. Now he's been frozen out and damn the troops if it means airtime for him.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Mar 2006)

eJackuLayton never met a microphone that he didn't like.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Mar 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> eJackuLayton never met a microphone that he didn't like.



And he must think that peacekeeping is standing around with stern looks and clean uniforms:  
"Hey, HEY, HEY  You can't give them bullets!  Cripes, they might shoot someone.  Can't we get a higher wall on this compound so that no one can throw things over?  AAA!  Was that a shot, I heard a shot!  Pack up your hootchies, we're getting the hell out of here.  This isn't what we signed up for".

Socialists love coming off like they are so morally superior and caring, yet any time there is real work to be done that looks like it could get messy, they crumple like a philo pastry under a hard cover text book.  
I don't agree with the public debate.  The only people who should be making decisions about the military are the military and the government.  Joe citizen doesn't get it.  The military does not have to be accountable to the public for their deployments.


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Jack Layton isnt whining. He represents a significant portion of Canadians who believe there should have been a public debate over this. Unfortunately it is too little too late. The debate should have been before the Liberals decided we should go in there.
> 
> Anyway, dont take it as whining. hes doing his job. I respect that.


He's whining. 
Pike,
I did not join the Canadian Peacekeeper's. I joined the Canadian Forces...the military.
I've worn the blue beret. But it's secondary to reason we really exist, like it or not.
Only in Canada  does Army and Military seem to mean not soldiers able to fight a war...only unarmed peacekeeper's and that's a very sad state if you ask me (or my grandfather). 
I would also argue that your "significant portion" of Canadians are most probably only the vocal minority. 

Edited to add: Because if they were the majority they'd be in power wouldn't they?


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Mar 2006)

+ 1 on what armyvern said


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Socialists love coming off like they are so morally superior and caring, yet any time there is real work to be done that looks like it could get messy, they crumple like a philo pastry under a hard cover text book.
> I don't agree with the public debate.  *The only people who should be making decisions about the military are the military and the government.  Joe citizen doesn't get it.  The military does not have to be accountable to the public for their deployments.*



WRONG ANSWER!

The government of the day gives us our marching orders, and THEY MUST explain to the taxpayers and citizens what is being done in their name. (They must explain *every* action they take using taxpayer money, but there are different threads for that). We, the CF should be able to *explain* in clear, consise terms *what we have been ordered to * do when asked, because the taxpayers are the ones who pay our bills. If we can't or won't say what is going on, then the taxpayer will quite correctly ask why are they paying for these *****?

However, we are in a difficult situation right now, *we were given our orders by the previous government, which did not offer a parliamentry or public debate*. Since we are actively engaged, debating the issue is now in the "too little. too late" column. If Smiling Jack would like a debate, how about picking a relevant topic like "what do you propose to do about Radicals in Canada/Iran/Dafur/China/(insert near term security concern)?" *I would also like to hear what HE proposes to do about those issues.....*


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Mar 2006)

I concede I phrased that poorly a_majoor.  What I was getting at was that I would hate to see some half assed public opinion poll or an after the fact referendum be launched and have the troops pulled out prematurely because Canadians still feel "icky" about a shooting war.  
I would like the military to *tell* the county what they are going to do, then go about the unfettered business of doing it without having to be distracted by hippie bulls_it from a bunch of tools who were too young to protest Viet Nam but need some soldiers to rag on just the same.  
I have a hard time believing that a properly informed  public will not support this action.  Now that the Conservatives are pulling the purse strings for the CBC, maybe we can get some actual decent PR out there.


----------



## QV (8 Mar 2006)

That may be happening, there was a special on CBC last night about the troops in A'stan.  I think there is something on tonight too  (2200 mtn time I think)


----------



## jonsey (8 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> WRONG ANSWER!
> 
> The government of the day gives us our marching orders, and THEY MUST explain to the taxpayers and citizens what is being done in their name. (They must explain *every* action they take using taxpayer money, but there are different threads for that). We, the CF should be able to *explain* in clear, consise terms *what we have been ordered to * do when asked, because the taxpayers are the ones who pay our bills. If we can't or won't say what is going on, then the taxpayer will quite correctly ask why are they paying for these *****?
> 
> However, we are in a difficult situation right now, *we were given our orders by the previous government, which did not offer a parliamentry or public debate*. Since we are actively engaged, debating the issue is now in the "too little. too late" column. If Smiling Jack would like a debate, how about picking a relevant topic like "what do you propose to do about Radicals in Canada/Iran/Dafur/China/(insert near term security concern)?" *I would also like to hear what HE proposes to do about those issues.....*



Explaining the reasons for a decision to the public, and asking the public for permission on every decision are completely different. 

They should explain the reasons for why the CF is over there, but they don't have to ask for permission. Permission for them to make the decisions was given when the government is elected into power.


----------



## armchair (8 Mar 2006)

Some were along the line the last parliament did not see the need to debate this deployment.
That had been in the works for some time.Where were the Opposition then Bloc Convective and 
the NDP.The were way to consered about the corruption of the last government.
The other thing that bothers my is how the NDP are been blame for the Peacekeeper Peacemaker Myth.
This Myth was been fashioned by the Governments in power in this country over the last 30 years And in this time
the NDP have never been in power.Any blame for the state of the Military can be blamed those same Government
in power over the last 20 years or so and the voters that put them there.
I DO NOT THINK THIS PARLIAMENT NEEDS TO DEBATE THIS.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE OVER THERE.


----------



## RCD (9 Mar 2006)

I'm not surprise about the NDP stance on this.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Mar 2006)

As ever, criticism in the absence of solutions is always aggravating.  It is far easier to shoot down other peoples ideas than to put up your own to bear the light of scrutiny.  
The NDP have fashioned themselves Canada's political "consciousness", although I don't remember anyone asking them.  That makes me think of that gad-awful Jimminy Cricket, the falsetto fun governor from Pinocchio.  A constant buzzing in your ear that you really don't need to hear or care to.  
No matter what the NDP say, it always comes across as "look at me, look at me, we matter, we are still here, please love me mommy".


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2006)

Jonsey said:
			
		

> Explaining the reasons for a decision to the public, and asking the public for permission on every decision are completely different.
> 
> They should explain the reasons for why the CF is over there, but they don't have to ask for permission. Permission for them to make the decisions was given when the government is elected into power.



100% true. Prime Minister Harper has inherited the situation form the previous government, and shoudl take action (public appearances, speeches, editorials to the papers etc.) to lay out the reasonong for our participation in Afghanistan, as well as some expectations as to what we hope to accomplish. Since the mission is already ongoing, there is not much more he can or should do.


----------



## Long in the tooth (9 Mar 2006)

Ah, the NDP.  I try not to think about Canada's unfortunate liability too much.  What troubles me is the amount of money we wasted on Jack's education, a supposedly smart man.

Just remember that socialists are morally inconsistent.  They advocate one set of rules for one group and then judicially deny those to another group.

I think once you realize that their views are internally irreconcilable you'll stop thinking about them.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Mar 2006)

Think of them as an itch....As irritating as it is, if you scratch it, it will develop into a rash....better to just ignore it


----------



## Hollywog (10 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 100% true. Prime Minister Harper has inherited the situation form the previous government, and shoudl take action (public appearances, speeches, editorials to the papers etc.) to lay out the reasonong for our participation in Afghanistan, as well as some expectations as to what we hope to accomplish. Since the mission is already ongoing, there is not much more he can or should do.



If Martin had won I doubt it would have happened.

It's a shame this is so political when like most on this blog people whose lives you know are on the line.


----------



## armchair (10 Mar 2006)

The NDP did not spit the vote.The Block did they got way more seat to there percentage of the of the voters.They got less than 10%
of the over all vote casted and how many seat? NDP may spilt some of the vote out west . It is in Quebec were there are allmost a 1/3 
of the seats in the house are.No party can win a clear majority until they can make a brake thought in Quebec.


----------



## military granny (10 Mar 2006)

Today I sat in my frontroom expecting to quietly watch the family of a great man,a soldier, and as many think of him a hero, say good bye who pops up on Canada's other news station? I could not believe my eyes, Jack Layton had the nerve to hold a live press conference and CTV  newsnet had the guts to cut into a military funeral to show Canadians how much of an idiot this guy really is.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> As annoying as the NDP are, I would venture to say that they do provide some service to our political system. They provide a view that is more social-welfare oriented then the Tories, so they do provide a small counter-weight to the right. I am of the opinion that in order to have a fair and effective system, the left must counter-balance the right and vice versa. I hate the NDP and their ilk and their policies are rather....goofy, but they still are an essential part of our political system in that they provide an effective voice for the left in parliament.
> 
> And besides, the help split the vote and prevent the Lieberals from keeping power. Of course, once the Libs sort their corrupt selves out, they could be a viable party as well for Canada. Tories centre-right, Libs centre-left and the NDP provides a counter-weight to both.



That is like saying that having a neighbor with a ADHD Pomeranian is a good thing, because it's constant screaming/barking scares away prowlers.  The shear level of annoyance is not worth the 0.01% of good it may do.  
I think the NDP are far more seditious than that.  Given the level of interest that Canadians take in politics, coupled with the CBC being a Lieberal puppet, the citizens just believe whatever the talking head on the screen says, if they here it enough and more than one talking head says it.  For decades the governments have been making the military sit on it's hands and we have made fairly sad contributions to world stability, given the size of our economy and relatively rich status among other nations.  At one point, wasn't Luxembourg making a greater contribution to NATO than we were?  Mind you, their tiny asses could get annexed pretty fast, they should have to buy a little love.  
Plus, when was the last time that the NDP had a good idea?  All they do now is bitch and shoot down other peoples ideas.  And please, no one trot out calling for a study or a referendum as being a good idea.  All that does is put big cash in a few toadies pockets to throw an anchor out and hang up a solution with bureaucratic BS.  Maybe Jack will volunteer to be a socialist embed with an infantry unit in A'stan so he can see first hand what a "mistake" are troops are making by being there.   :  [strange how there were no more flak jackets that didn't have day-glo orange covers with "I AM IN CHARGE" embroidered on the back]
There are lots of other parties out there that are useless and non viable.  The NDP just happens to have lingered on longer and has managed to gain a following.  The way people waste their votes, don't be surprised to see Marihuana Party candidates getting seats some day soon.  Bollocks.  Here is a great party that we can support in the next election, and it offers a new solution to all of the existing parties.  Too bad I didn't find these guys before the election.   It's a flawless system:

http://r.vresp.com/?ThatCanadianGuy/f7a10be81d/531016/24a5d766a0/a4022b5

Remember:  Don't think, just vote.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I THINK something is bothering you today, Zipperhead.

Come on- don't keep it all bottled up inside- you'll only hurt yourself


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Mar 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can't quite put my finger on it, but I THINK something is bothering you today, Zipperhead.
> 
> Come on- don't keep it all bottled up inside- you'll only hurt yourself



March break makes me ranty. ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2006)

> March break makes me ranty.



Jackass overload out on the streets?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Mar 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Jackass overload out on the streets?



No, that is every night, all year around here.  Nope, just the spring in the air, summer around the corner.  Just feelin' me oats.  That, and I just got green lighted by my SSGT and (more importantly) my 9er Domestic to go to NYC for a four day weekend for St Patricks.  Yee Haw!


----------



## Rory (11 Mar 2006)

Oh dear god. I clicked on the randomparty.ca link I went to the random vote decider slot machine thingy (my grammar and description skills are unparalleled I know.) and bam Jack Layton head.... another one.... OH SWEET JESUS NDP ON THE SLOTS. I got this cold shiver down my spine. Randomness is no good, it still gives socialists a chance.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Mar 2006)

Rory said:
			
		

> Oh dear god. I clicked on the randomparty.ca link I went to the random vote decider slot machine thingy (my grammar and description skills are unparalleled I know.) and bam Jack Layton head.... another one.... OH SWEET JESUS NDP ON THE SLOTS. I got this cold shiver down my spine. Randomness is no good, it still gives socialists a chance.



Maybe that would be a good way to help cure gambling addicts...


----------

