Trudeau's campaign of fear and lies

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis call out Justin Trudeau on Climate Change; http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

They should have came out and endorsed the NDP as the best of the top three choices.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis call out Justin Trudeau on Climate Change; http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

They should have came out and endorsed the NDP as the best of the top three choices.

Agreed! Just like that stupid leatter from Barlow and all her cronies crying out for voters to dump C51 voting parties, and not endorsing the NDP either. The "Canadian elite", are frauds and for the most part, Liberals. They've failed miserably. They are really acting like weak kneed american progressives. Let's all get along. By the way, Jim Stafford says he has problems with TPP but supports it. The so called left-wing intelligentsai in this country are pathetic.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:
By the way, Jim Stafford says he has problems with TPP but supports it.

I'm guessing you mean Jim Stanford.

I'm publicly offering you $1,000 for a credible source quoting Jim Stanford saying he supports the TPP.

If you can't, I want $1.50 from you. Or, a retraction.

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis call out Justin Trudeau on Climate Change; http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

They should have came out and endorsed the NDP as the best of the top three choices.

The NDP supports Energy East which is 1/3rd larger than Keystone XL and crosses almost all of Canada's most populated areas. There is no reason for them to endorse the NDP.

mark_alfred

On the contrary, the NDP don't support Energy East because the environmental assessments of it have not been rigid enough.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis call out Justin Trudeau on Climate Change; http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

They should have came out and endorsed the NDP as the best of the top three choices.

The NDP supports Energy East which is 1/3rd larger than Keystone XL and crosses almost all of Canada's most populated areas. There is no reason for them to endorse the NDP.

Pondering, they were all over Keystone XL. They Obviously see it as a bigger threat. FAIL!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
By the way, Jim Stafford says he has problems with TPP but supports it.

I'm guessing you mean Jim Stanford.

I'm publicly offering you $1,000 for a credible source quoting Jim Stanford saying he supports the TPP.

If you can't, I want $1.50 from you. Or, a retraction.

 

Unionist who made you the Lord High Executioner? Here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gq2ZfjZ9I4.

Get lost you troll!

ETA: opps, I better be careful, he probably has my on his little list, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwsbNn1g5k ! He probablhy thinks I'm on of those people that "woudln't be missed"! Wink

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh, and I just realized something too. Bill Mckibbon, the climate change authority, labels Keystone XL the biggest enemy to the world's climate. Unless he's wrong. Email him Pondering, tell him that he is, and let me know what he says. OK? Thanks!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh, by the way, nice try at deflecting the thread the two of you. FAIL!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
Unionist

I just want to confirm that Arthur's claim that Jim Stanford supports TPP is false. It's a shame that instead of admitting and retracting, he resorts to screaming and namecalling.

welder welder's picture

Watch it Unionist...Next thing he'll be calling you a "bully" and reporting your post for "harassment"...

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh, and I just realized something too. Bill Mckibbon, the climate change authority, labels Keystone XL the biggest enemy to the world's climate. Unless he's wrong. Email him Pondering, tell him that he is, and let me know what he says. OK? Thanks!

Yes, because it will expotentially increase production in the oil sands. Energy East is 1/3rd larger.

What the grassroots opposition has also done is cause a ripple effect that has come to be known as “Keystone-ization” — the realization by ordinary people that they can successfully oppose big projects. Examples can be seen around the world.

“Keystone had something to with it, but they are all equally important and for me, it’s quite wonderful to watch … and for oil industry executives it’s quite annoying to watch,” says McKibben. “I read an interview the other day of the head of some fossil fuel industry. He said: ‘We have to stop the Keystone-ization of every pipeline in the world.’ That made me happy. Our job is to make sure that every new project like this is opposed.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/04/bill-mckibben-a-soft-spok...

Energy East is on the list. There is no halfway with pipelines. No brownie points for moving a pipeline to a more dangerous location. The NDP is out of touch with people on this pipeline. Ontario and Quebec don't want that pipeline and together they form a majority of Canadians. It would threaten Manitoba's water, the Great Lakes and the Saint Lawrence river. They plan to use old pipes. EE is a threat to Canada. That's why the environmental movement has been so successful. They have been telling the truth and the truth persuades. The left doesn't own environmentalism. It crosses all barriers.

Speaking of which, time for Mulcair to graciously accept Trudeau's invitation to the Paris Conference. It's beginning to look churlish the longer he holds off acceptance.

 

welder welder's picture

This is interesting...

 

Could you tell us why a Big Oil exec was on Trudeau's campaign team greasing the corporate skids for the various Big Oil (and pipeline) lobbyists??...Keystone XL seems to be DOA in the US and Trudeau has already said he has no interest in Northern Gateway...

MegB

welder wrote:

Watch it Unionist...Next thing he'll be calling you a "bully" and reporting your post for "harassment"...

Actually, Unionist's post was flagged. Duly ignored by this moderator. Art Cramer, please stop flagging posts that you disagree with. The flag button is for violations of babble policy and is not a forum to whine about a babbler you don't like.

Slumberjack

Compared to the goings on in partisan political threads, it says an awful lot when we anarchists have been a model of decorum throughout the election.

mark_alfred

I don't know if Stanford has ever taken a definitive stand on TPP.  He's said that it may be dead in the water given the States might not be on board (specifying Clinton).  He's also said that the alleged trade benefits of it are not as depicted, since we already have FTAs with 3/4 of the scope of TPP, and since there currently are no tariffs with Japan on autos (though not sure about other sectors).  link 1 2 3

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The NDP supports Energy East which is 1/3rd larger than Keystone XL and crosses almost all of Canada's most populated areas. There is no reason for them to endorse the NDP.

You seem to be persisting in this.  They have not supported Energy East.  From 2014:  http://www.ndp.ca/news/government-must-protect-citizens-transcanadas-mis...

Quote:
Energy transportation is a major issue in this country, upon which our economic and ecological future depends. Now citizens are being prevented from participating in the debate. The NDP is clear: we will not draw any conclusions about this project until all the facts are known and the impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, have been analyzed in a thorough and transparent manner. As of today, none of these steps have been taken on the Energy East pipeline.

Anyway, it's more important to focus on the current governing party, which is the Liberals.  I think Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are correct to do this in this article.  Don't you agree?

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis wrote:

Trudeau consistently lambasted Harper for failing to sell the Obama Administration on Keystone XL. His campaign co-chair was caught advising oil industry execs on how to win quick approval from the new government for the biggest proposed tar sands pipeline in Canada. And Trudeau himself waved off questions about specific emissions cuts by saying, “what we need is not ambitious political targets.”

[But] under Trudeau, Canada is less likely to be a belligerent, obstructionist force at the UN climate talks in Paris next month.

But we are also determined to learn from your experience. We remember what happened when progressives de-mobilized after Obama was elected and we won’t make the same mistake. Instead, a huge and growing movement of Canadians is determined to give our young prime minister the best gift any new government can receive: relentless pressure from below.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The NDP supports Energy East which is 1/3rd larger than Keystone XL and crosses almost all of Canada's most populated areas. There is no reason for them to endorse the NDP.

You seem to be persisting in this.  They have not supported Energy East. 

Well, what I find important is the evolution of the NDP's position since 2014 (when they obviously supported it) to today, in response to unanimous opposition in Québec and massive dissatisfaction from NDP supporters. That evolution is to the NDP's credit, even though we would all wish that they declared, today, that they will never approve it.

That evolution (and, inevitably, ambiguity) in their position is described in part in [url=https://ricochet.media/en/521/mulcair-on-energy-east-we-are-against-that... recent article[/url].

And mark_alfred, I'm not sure what point you're making about Jim Stanford and TPP. He has written extensively on the subject. A defamatory lie was stated upthread, that Stanford "supports" TPP. I asked for it to be retracted, to no avail. But it really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread - a topic which, it might be added, is in itself rather embarrassingly dumb and hyper-partisan.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
The NDP supports Energy East which is 1/3rd larger than Keystone XL and crosses almost all of Canada's most populated areas. There is no reason for them to endorse the NDP.

mark_alfred wrote:
You seem to be persisting in this.  They have not supported Energy East.  From 2014:  http://www.ndp.ca/news/government-must-protect-citizens-transcanadas-mis...

Quote:
Energy transportation is a major issue in this country, upon which our economic and ecological future depends. Now citizens are being prevented from participating in the debate. The NDP is clear: we will not draw any conclusions about this project until all the facts are known and the impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, have been analyzed in a thorough and transparent manner. As of today, none of these steps have been taken on the Energy East pipeline.
 

I am specifically referencing motivating the enviromentalist vote. The facts are already known. Climate change is global. The direction in which we pipe bitumen is immaterial. The NDP did not condemn Keystone on environmental grounds they did so on economic grounds.

While he maintains Keystone is environmentally unsustainable and should never have gotten off the drawing board, Mulcair contends a cross-Canada pipeline would keep construction and refining jobs in Canada rather than exporting them to the United States.

But a report by the respected Pembina Institute doesn’t concur with Mulcair’s assessment.

The report estimates TransCanada’s proposed $12-billion Energy East pipeline would actually result in a greater increase in greenhouse-gas emissions than Keystone.

And it casts doubt on its job-creating potential, arguing that the three Canadian refineries to which TransCanada proposes to pipe western crude aren’t currently equipped to refine extra heavy oil from Alberta’s oil sands.

....

“Keystone XL represents the export of 40,000 Canadian jobs. So as a matter of principle, we’re saying, since that bitumen is moving anyway, move it in Canada, create 40,000 jobs here, get a better price for the producers, more royalties for the producing provinces – oh, and by the way, take care of Canada’s energy security.”

Mulcair said the cross-Canada pipeline should still be subject to a “complete, thorough, credible” environmental assessment. While he promised to review the Pembina report’s numbers, the NDP leader said he’d be “very surprised” if it produced more greenhouse-gas emissions than Keystone.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-sticks-with-pipelin...

Guess he never got around to viewing those numbers and there is no mention of social licence. The environment has nothing to do with Mulcair's opposition to Keystone. It was all about jobs, appealing for union votes, while appearing to be concerned about the environment. Energy East is a far more threatening pipeline for Canada's and the world's environment. Environmentalists that are against the oil sands development cannot be fooled by changing the direction of the pipeline. Canadians living along the pipeline don't want it. There is no eviromental assessment that will convince them to accept it. There is no such thing as zero risk even if they weren't planning on using old pipes from 50 years ago.

mark_alfred wrote:
Anyway, it's more important to focus on the current governing party, which is the Liberals.  I think Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are correct to do this in this article.  Don't you agree?

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33136-focus-the-false-pro...

Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis wrote:

But we are also determined to learn from your experience. We remember what happened when progressives de-mobilized after Obama was elected and we won’t make the same mistake. Instead, a huge and growing movement of Canadians is determined to give our young prime minister the best gift any new government can receive: relentless pressure from below.

Duh, but I didn't notice progressives de-mobilizing after Obama was elected. Everyone who voted for Obama did not consider themselves "A Progressive" dedicated to all progressive causes. 

I never suggested environmentalists should be more supportive of Trudeau than of Mulcair but Trudeau has put more emphasis on social licence than Mulcair has. Apparently "populism" is a dirty word to the left. To Trudeau, pleasing the majority of citizens/voters is something to strive for as long as it doesn't contravene basic rights, such as the right to wear a niqab. Does he also want to please "business"? Absolutely. He is no revolutionary, he is basically status quo in terms of the structure of our government, basic economic structures, he will go keynesian, nothing more radical than that. He genuinely believes it is the job of government to get our resources to market, including oil.

Trudeau has never wavered from the position that social licence is required and that it is up to the oil companies to obtain it. So yes, people have to show they are opposed to EE or it will go through. People have to be willing to fight TPP and CETA, or they will go through. The NDP opposing TPP at this point is weak although if people rise up against it the NDP will try to take credit.

terrytowel

dp

mark_alfred

Pondering, the article also said,

Quote:
And Trudeau himself waved off questions about specific emissions cuts by saying, “what we need is not ambitious political targets.”

On this, Trudeau certainly was behind the NDP in policy, since the NDP did promise to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act and establish specific targets and a means (national cap and trade) to achieve them.  So, there is work for all environmental activists to do with this Liberal government.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering, the article also said,

Quote:
And Trudeau himself waved off questions about specific emissions cuts by saying, “what we need is not ambitious political targets.”

On this, Trudeau certainly was behind the NDP in policy, since the NDP did promise to pass the Climate Change Accountability Act and establish specific targets and a means (national cap and trade) to achieve them.  So, there is work for all environmental activists to do with this Liberal government.

You quoted part of a sentence.  He is right that setting targets that aren't met is useless.

Trudeau is bringing a full delegation including premiers and First Nations representatives and other party leaders to the Climate Change talks to build consensus so whatever decisions are taken will have buy in from the people who actually have to take the actions to reduce emissions which is the point, not just setting targets. It's easier for Quebec to reduce emissions because of our abundance of hydro power so assigning all the provinces the same target is not necessarily fair. The north is heavily dependent on diesel for heat and doesn't have access to the same solutions as the south.

I have long been interested in Trudeau's focus on building consensus which he talked about when he was running to become leader. Modern teaching techniques rely heavily on team building which includes teaching the ability to achieve consensus within groups.

Trudeau won the election. Maybe Mulcair would have done a better job on the environment but there is no way to know where the path not taken would have brought us. Trudeau has a majority so he will be Prime Minister for the next 4 years. There will be plenty to criticize him for but that is also true of the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The bottom line here, from the beginning, starting with trying to steal Jack's (blessed be his memory), Trudeau ran a vicious, dishonest, smear filled campaign against the NDP, the vitriol and viciousness of it saved ONLY for the NDP. That is a fact. And what have we seen here and in other threads since, threats that the NDP better, basically, watch themselves if they know wha's good for them. Hubris thy name is Liberal

Mighty AC

Really? That campaign seemed vicious to you? It seemed rather tame, positive and hopeful to me. A little long on promises though.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
Mighty AC

Arthur Cramer wrote:

More lies; need for action, Meh, not so much, http://globalnews.ca/news/2297854/goodale-tax-cuts-and-new-benefit-chequ...

What are you referring to? Middle class tax cuts, concentrating childcare funds among the less wealthy, accepting refugees, redefining our role in Syria?

Mighty AC

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously! Read the article you clown!
I did, you classless old man. Now what are you referring to?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mighty AC wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

More lies; need for action, Meh, not so much, http://globalnews.ca/news/2297854/goodale-tax-cuts-and-new-benefit-chequ...

What are you referring to? Middle class tax cuts, concentrating childcare funds among the less wealthy, accepting refugees, redefining our role in Syria?

Seriously! Le Dauphin promised immediate action! Tom had said he'd call Parliment to sit in Dec to immediately repeal C51! OBVIOUSLY Trudeau cares MORE about politics than helping people! Change, my eye. Same damn lying, no good for nothing Libs led by a kid who couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag with a compass, a guide dog, and signs!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mighty AC wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously! Read the article you clown!
I did, you classless old man. Now what are you referring to?

Read my post above. Classless? Really? That's pretty funyy coming from a guy who all he's done is post and rub people's faces in it! Look in the mirror Mac!

Mighty AC

You are a waste of time.

Cody87

Mighty AC wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously! Read the article you clown!
I did, you classless old man. Now what are you referring to?

I believe he is upset by this:

 

Quote:
[Goodale] said it’s “unlikely” Parliament will meet before Christmas.

“But that remains to be seen,” Goodale added. “That will be up to the new government to determine.”

 

 

You know, since St. Tom would have recalled parliament in December, and "Justin" might not.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

 Gooddale shows Liberals lie.

Mighty AC

Cody87 wrote:
You know, since St. Tom would have recalled parliament in December, and "Justin" might not.

Ah, so middle class tax cuts, concentrating childcare funds among the less wealthy, accepting refugees, redefining our role in Syria in the new year would equate to a campaign of lies. I see...  Let's form a search party, I believe we have some missing marbles to round up.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mighty AC wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
You know, since St. Tom would have recalled parliament in December, and "Justin" might not.

Ah, so middle class tax cuts, concentrating childcare funds among the less wealthy, accepting refugees, redefining our role in Syria in the new year would equate to a campaign of lies. I see...  Let's form a search party, I believe we have some missing marbles to round up.

It will all be meaningless once Truderau signs TPP which will give Corproations power to control public policy through third party challenges. The enforcmenet povisons of the treaty will make it impossible for Trudeau to govern for the people. He put the whip on for the TPP and says there will be no free vote; he OBVIOUSLY intends to pass it as and allow the 1% through their Corproations to control public policy. Trudeau will not be able to govern. It doens't matter what he says he'll pass. That's bread and circuses and you Lib Le Daupin cheerleaders are living in fantasy land.

ETA: By the way in the last week of the electioon, the CBC provided analysis that Trudeau's tax break will onlyo benefit those making more than 40K, and that the real benefit those earning more than 100K. I have no doubt that all his promises will deliver income the same way. This is how the LIbs ALWAYS govern; they give the most to those that already have the most, and say they're progressive. Bah!

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering, the article also said,

Quote:
And Trudeau himself waved off questions about specific emissions cuts by saying, “what we need is not ambitious political targets.”

You quoted part of a sentence. 

Correction:  Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis may have quoted part of a sentence in their article.  I quoted a full sentence from their article. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Stay at it Mark!

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering, the article also said,

Quote:
And Trudeau himself waved off questions about specific emissions cuts by saying, “what we need is not ambitious political targets.”

You quoted part of a sentence. 

Correction:  Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis may have quoted part of a sentence in their article.  I quoted a full sentence from their article. 

The point remains that it mischaracterizes his point which is that we haven't met targets in the past therefore it is better to get all the premiers onboard and First Nations in setting targets taking into account actual actions that will be taken. For example, Quebec can be more ambitious than Alberta because we have so much hydro power.

mark_alfred

Good article on Rabble by Duncan Cameron that touches upon the issue of Trudeau's negative campaign against the NDP.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/10/trust-me-im-lying-dark-side-election...

Duncan Cameron wrote:

As the Official Opposition, Tom Mulcair and the NDP caucus did a great job in undermining the credibility of the Harper government; then Justin Trudeau reaped the rewards by sowing doubts about "Tom Mulcair's NDP" throughout election 2015.

Trust Me, I'm Lying is the title of a popular book about public relations in the online age, where image trumps substance and perception is everything.

Campaign managers want to know what is effective, what resonates, what works to activate voters. That is where political truth gets confused with dirty politics.

The Liberals wanted to kneecap Mulcair, but so did Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe. "He says one thing in English and another in French" was a Liberal talking point picked up by the Bloc leader, and repeated constantly with effect. This kind of accusation (made about Mulcair on Energy East and Quebec nationalism) is virtually impossible to refute, and no proof is required to make it stick. Having people hear it repeated is enough.

Yeah, it was a nasty campaign.  However, Duncan Cameron too is critical of the NDP's campaign, particularly the balanced budget pledge.  Interesting article.

JKR

Cameron's article here on Rabble hits the nail on the head. It should be required reading.

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/10/trust-me-im-lying-dark-side-election...

Duncan Cameron wrote:
For no obvious reason given the serious economic problems facing Canada (that go far beyond the falling oil price), the NDP campaign decided to contrast NDP success in balancing budgets in Saskatchewan with the deficits run by Ottawa Conservatives. Structural problems with Canadian manufacturing, the falling dollar, the external deficit, foreign control of the economy, or corporate tax evasion, all got short shrift.

Former Saskatchewan NDP finance minister Andrew Thomson was recruited to run against federal Finance Minister Joe Oliver in his Toronto riding. His successive provincial surplus budgets were supposed to show that the NDP understood the economy and should be entrusted with power.

Thomson became a major voice in Toronto and nationally, speaking on the NDP talking point: why balanced budgets made good economic sense.

The main problem with this claim is that it is wrong. Budget deficits occur when the economy is weak; a strong economy produces surpluses. Trying to balance the budget in a weak economy makes things worse.

The 17 straight Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) budget surpluses under Tommy Douglas -- a favourite NDP campaign factoid -- took place in an economy growing after the Second World War.

As NDP finance critic, in 2007 Tom Mulcair (along with the Liberals) urged the Harper government to go into deficit to fight the serious downturn. The minority Conservatives agreed in order to stay in power.

After the unfortunate Andrew Thomson had explained how the NDP was going to balance the budget, days later the Liberals came out with their "Real Change" platform: borrowing to create wealth, taking a risk to improve the Canadian quality of life.

The Liberal pledge to do deficit financing turned out to be the game changer. The public-private partnership component of their plan -- what Liberals would do with the borrowed money -- was kept under wraps and is still largely unnoticed.

Conveniently for the Liberals, Statistics Canada figures showed the Canadian economy in recession. Strangely, the NDP did not pivot to address it.

The NDP won 13.6 per cent of the vote in Toronto. Thompson got six per cent in his riding, where the Conservative finance minister lost to a Liberal -- the Liberals won all 46 Toronto seats behind their pledge to act now to stimulate the economy.

Someone has to take responsibility for the NDP campaign failure.

Unionist

* whoops wrong thread *

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

More on the TPP, https://www.popularresistance.org/mega-trade-deal-would-make-most-americ... Trudeau has the NERVE to call Mulcair a Thatcherite? She'd love this, and Trudeau KNEW what was going to be in this. Again, he's already put the whip on. He said the NDP was pro austerity and that he'd create an economy good for everyone. This article clearly shows that once Trudeau, without, qualification, signs the TPP, that will be impossible. He lied and he knew he was lyinng. Liberal LIE. That's what they do!

KenS

That "negative campaign" of the Liberals was a trifle.

KenS

BTW, I've decided to join in appreciating the glow around Trudeau while I can.

Plenty of time to shred him later. You know, after he actually does something.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Or doesn't do something.  Or says he'll do something and doesn't.  Or says he won't but does.  Or doesn't deny that he didn't claim that he was going to consider something that he later doesn't do, while pretending that he ever promised he wouldn't do it.

MegB

Mighty AC wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Seriously! Read the article you clown!
I did, you classless old man. Now what are you referring to?

This is an ageist personal attack and is in violation of babble policy.

Pages