Friday, May 19, 2006


I think I must be the only person who really doesn't care very strongly one way or the other about the Afghanistan vote the other night. Everyone I've talked to, in person and on-line, has been incredibly vocal:

"The Liberal Party is hopelessly divided!"
"Harper is a warmonger!"
"The Liberal Party is full of cowards!"
"Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison lost the leadership race!"
"Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison showed they should be co-Prime Ministers of Canada!" (Note: There's a sitcom I'd definitely watch)
"Liberals don't support our troops!"
"Harper is a Bush puppet! A shrub! A buppet!"
"I've lost complete respect for Harper/Ignatieff/Dion/Yasmin Ratansi!"
"Harper/Ignatieff/Dion/Yasmin Ratansi have no morals!"
"I can't believe Elliott got kicked off American Idol!"

Personally, I find the controversy around this vote about as exciting as the controversy around The DaVinci Code (It's fiction! FICTION!!!). Yes, I think we should be in Afghanistan and I think Jean Chretien made the right decision to send troops there. But, at the same time, I don't see the need to show our support for some nebulous undefined future commitment (I like Afghanistan, but I'm not ready to pop the question). I agree our troops might be better served in Darfur, but there isn't a mission to Darfur on the table right now.

The bottom line is this was a rushed vote where no one really knew what they were voting on. And it was a vote Harper said he would ignore.

It was brilliant politics on Harper's part - he makes the Liberals appear divided and sets up every Liberal leadership contender for the eventual "John Kerry quote". And it's hard to look bad when you're "supporting the troops". But personally, I just can't get worked up over what was, for all intents and purposes, a meaningless vote.

UPDATE: Jason Cherniak has a scoop on Stephane Dion's op-ed which we'll see in the Saturday papers. In it, he explains why he voted against the motion.


  • You're nominated for the best non-partisan repitition of talking points for 2006.

    * vote was way too early
    * no one knew what they were voting on.
    * Harper said he would ignore the vote anyways.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:33 p.m.  

  • I thought Ratansi voted nay.

    By Blogger bigcitylib, at 12:40 p.m.  

  • Yes. Harper did a flip-flop.

    He was going to tough out extensions with out votes on the grounds that only new missions should have the vote the Liberals never had.

    For whatever practical reasons he decided it was better to get a consensus in parliament before negotiating our precise role in 2007/8.

    The downside of the decision was the possibility that he would have t approch the other NATO countries about winding down.

    Bill Graham knew full well that notwithstanding the Feb. 2007 expiry date, a Feb. 2007 withdrawal would be too fast for our allies.

    I seriously doubt the Liberal party would have objected to an extra year to winddown.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:43 p.m.  

  • Nice post.

    You are right, the vote was pure politics.

    Was this just a tactic? Or is part of Harpers overall strategy?

    Will there be more votes to come that divide the party? If there are more divisive votes in the future, than maybe you should start to care.

    By Blogger Liberal Fortunes, at 12:46 p.m.  

  • If the gov't is supposed to work out our annual mission plans with our allies and then bring them to Parliament for ratification the vote was too early and without information.

    But if I had wings I could fly to Ottawa.

    Parliament knew exactly what they were asked for. They were asked to give the gov't the mandate to negotiate and finalize our contributions for 2007-8 up to and including leading the mission in 2008.

    They had exactly 3 choices.

    *Not give that manadate leading to a orderly winddown.
    *Give that mandate to the Conservatives.
    *Replace the gov't and give a new gov't that mandate.

    The majority of the Liberal caucus clearly stated that we should stay on but that the gov't should not be given that mandate.

    Kudos for Bill Graham and the 29 others for given the gov't the required mandate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:52 p.m.  

  • Hello CalgaryGrit and crew,

    Pay close attention, profundity knocks at the door, listen for the key. Be aware, scoffing leads to blindness...

    There is a way to verify the truth about many things...

    There's a bit more to the story of the Vatican's reaction than most are yet aware of. Read my missive below to understand what they truly fear. It's not the DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas per se, but the fact that people have been motivated to seek out the unequivocal truth about an age of deception, exactly when they expect me to appear. The Gospel of Judas and DaVinci Code controversies are allowing people to take new stock of the Vatican/Papacy and the religions Rome spawned.

    Remember, "I come as a thief..." ?

    Yes, the DaVinci Code is a novel. It is no more accurate as a literal version of history than is the New Testament. In other words, neither is the literal truth, which is a key fact of the story and ancient history. The primary sub-plot is about purposeful symbology being used to encode hidden meanings, exactly like the Bible and related texts. Arguing about whether the DaVinci Code, Gospel of Judas, or the Bible are accurate history is a Machiavellian red herring designed to hide the truth by misdirecting your inquiry away from the heart of the matter.

    Want to truly understand why we can't let the Vatican succeed at telling us what to think about ancient history? There is a foolproof way to verify the truth and expose centuries-old religious deceptions. It is also the common thread connecting why the ancient Hebrews, Yahad/Essene, Jews, Gnostics, Cathars, Templars, Dead Sea Scrolls, DaVinci Code, and others have all been targets of Rome’s ire and evil machinations. What the Vatican and its secret society cohorts don’t want you to understand is that the ancient Hebrew symbology in all of these texts purposely encodes and exposes the truth about them. Furthermore, the structure of ancient symbology verifiably encodes the rules to decode messages built with it. This is what they most fear you will discover.

    If the Bible represented the literal truth or even accurate history, there would be no need for faith in the assertions of deceptive and duplicitous clergy and their ilk. Wisdom and faith are opposing concepts, because wisdom requires the unequivocal truth where faith obfuscates and opposes it. Religion is therefore the enemy of truth and wisdom.

    It is undeniable the New Testament is framed by ancient Hebrew symbolism and allegory. The same is evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic texts, biblical apocrypha, DaVinci Code, and other related texts. All ancient religious, mystical, and wisdom texts have been shrouded in mystery for millennia for one primary reason: The ability to understand their widely evidenced symbology was lost in antiquity. How do we finally solve these ages-old mysteries? To recast an often-used political adage: It’s [the] symbology, stupid!

    It is amazing the Vatican still tries to insist the Gospels are literal truth. It is beyond obvious they are replete with ancient Hebrew symbology. Every miracle purported for Jesus has multiple direct symbolic parallels in the Old Testament, Apocalypse, Dead Sea Scrolls, and other symbolic narratives and traditions. This is the secret held by the ancient Gnostics, Templars, and Cathars, which is presented with dramatic effect in the DaVinci Code. None of these narratives or stories were ever intended as the literal truth. That is a key fact to unraveling ages-old mysteries.

    Likewise, the following Washington Post article ( The Book of Bart) describes how many changes and embellishments were made to New Testament texts over the centuries, unequivocally demonstrating they are not original, infallible, or truthful.

    It's no wonder the Vatican fears the truth more than anything else. Seek to understand the symbolic significance of my name (Seven Star Hand) and you will have proof beyond disproof that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have long been duped by the great deceivers I warned humanity about over the millennia. What then is the purpose of "faith" but to keep good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?

    Now comes justice, hot on its heels... (symbolism...)

    Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk...
    Here is Wisdom!!

    Revelations from the Apocalypse

    By Blogger Seven Star Hand, at 1:02 p.m.  

  • Wow, a Davinci code Troll, who would have thought.

    I personally believe the vote was an affront to the Parliamentary traditions. The Executive Branch is Solely responsible for the actions of the government, and in foreign affairs not responsible to parliament.

    This vote only provides political cover with which our parliament was not designed to work with.

    There is a mission to Darfur, but it is likely to fail just like Somalia, because no one but western troops has the means to do anything about it, but the local population seems to like killing westerners, even if they are aid workers.

    Darfur would be harder than Afghanistan, in addition to the poor rules of engagement surely to be written by the UN

    By Blogger Manley Man, at 1:12 p.m.  

  • To me it seems obvious that this vote was an arrangement between Harper and Layton, to embarrass the Liberal party. Can't you picture a televised Liberal convention where hundreds are jeering Ignatieff, hauling out the hoary Bush comparisons? Where the press are actively trying to play up a split in the Liberal party? Where the guys waiting in the wings-Manley,McKenna,Tobin-are saying Rae doesn't have what it takes to be a national leader? If the Liberals were half as smart as they think they are, they would have abstained en masse,and explained why to the voters.

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 1:16 p.m.  

  • I agree our troops might be better served in Darfur, but there isn't a mission to Darfur on the table right now.

    Do you really think Canada can just send troops to Darfur?

    Do you think the Sudan government would sit around and let that happen?

    Do you want to start a new war?

    Do you want to create a new generation of children who despise the us?

    I don't think Darfur is that simple.

    I'm sure the NDP has a plan drawn up though. Well they have a template for every military situation which is as follows:

    1. Send in troops.
    2. Retreat immediately and blame the Conservatives.

    By Blogger What_The_Puck?, at 1:58 p.m.  

  • What the Puck's post was hilarious!

    Way to go! He's right on track and Darfur is not that simple at all. Here we have Afghanistan begging for us and we're like "Oh sorry no, I'm waiting to see if Darfur is going to say yes"... its like I'm back in high school searching for a prom date.

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 2:10 p.m.  

  • I disagree about this vote being unnecessary CG. I think it was important because it closes the debate (for now) concerning should we stay or go.

    I mean, I'm getting tired of polls being taken 'guaging public support' and I'm sure the Afghanis are getting anxious wondering whether or not Canada will commit after Feb 2007.

    By Blogger Eric, at 2:16 p.m.  

  • Well, what's interesting for me is Harper and the reform ers always made a big deal over the fact that MPs should have the ability to vote according to their conscience aka abortion, etc. and not be dominated by party doctrine or policy. In this vote only the Liberals gave their members the right to a free vote then everyone complains afterward. That's the tricky thing about democracy, when you give people freedom you won't always get the result YOU want. You get the result of FREEDOM.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:46 p.m.  

  • at least the Librals were smart enough to have a free vote.

    Laytin whiped his mutts into line and made them all look like isolationist pussies.

    By Blogger Fred's, at 2:54 p.m.  

  • Fred's Place,

    Glad you said it. I've been thinking the exact same thing just not enough courage to say it on blogs. ha

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 3:00 p.m.  

  • Well, consider this:

    The Liberals are in government. Paul Martin calls a snap vote asking Parliament for their support to enter Kyoto II. We don't know what this treaty will involve and a people are confused if they're voting on the current Kyoto treating or this future, yet to be determined one. And Paul has said Canada will negotiate to enter this treaty regardless of what parliament says.

    I'm sure a lot of the Tories supporting Harper here would say that Martin was "playing politics" or had called a useless vote.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 3:48 p.m.  

  • Bart
    I tend to agree with you on most of what you said but...
    I still can't get over the fact that the Liberals put the soldiers in Afganistan and until we can say mission accomplished and really mean it we have an obligation to support those soldiers and what they are trying to accomplish.
    In the immidiette proximity of the vote I was angry with Dion and Dryden and the others for being cowardly on something they supported when in cabinet, now less so.
    To be honest I am far more interested in this Book of Bart that SEVEN STAR HAND is talking about!
    IS it yours?
    Is it about You?
    WHat is it that you know about the holy grail?
    Is Bart Ransom a anagram for something and if so what?
    Perhaps everyone could come up with some ideas.
    Perhaps Calgary Grit can solve the true Davinci code!!!

    By Blogger Aristo, at 4:13 p.m.  

  • Never pass up a chance to John Kerry your opponents. Jean - JEAN! - committed Canada to Afghanistan. PMsquared re-upped. Now the LPC can't figure out its position? This should have been an easy vote: Ready, Aye Ready! Sargeant Major, Sir!

    I also like the alternative of abstaining offered in the comments by Nuna. That way you're not risking the mission but can show your opposition to the process. Shows maturity about goals and a separation between procedural concerns and substantive issues.

    Does the LPC really think that full on pacificism is where they can stake their ground? On a mission that one of their majority governments initiated and then their minority re-affirmed? LPC coming down on the side of isolationism and disengagement validates the Svend Robinson wing of the NDP. Smiling Jack had to whip his cabinet to get them all inline (Afstan is the good war even for most opponents of Iraq, except for the REALLY radical commies and anti-imperialists) but they can reasonably play to the peace at all costs vote. LPC? Uh, no. Stay in the middle, support the multilateral approach, the clear connection to 9/11, and mutter darkly about other overly American conflicts.

    This fascination with going farther to the left is bad political strategy. It's great for me and my confreres, we'll pick up lots of blue grits and pick off many more 905 seats and 519. LPC trading 905 and 519 to CPC for a few more 416 and Vancouver seats from NDP- bad idea. CPC gets a majority while LPC squeezes out NDP as a political party. Also picks off some Bloquiste votes and hands more Quebec seats to CPC, trending towards Mulroney sized majority.

    Get used to the Wilderness folks. You're going to need how to snare rabbits, find berries, and make a fire for a good long time. Cheersch!

    By Blogger Hey, at 4:13 p.m.  

  • To all the simpletons in this thread who think that voting against the motion the other night was somehow voting against the mission: how stupid are you?

    Stop being idiots. Many folks voted against the motion because it was brought up suddenly, out of the blue by Harper, with a hard and fast "take it or leave it" deadline. No real debate, no input from Canadians on this. Why not have time for MP to consult their constituents? Why not have Comittee hearings and let Canadians and experts testify?

    I support the mission, and have quite vocally around the blogsphere, but I would not have voted for that railroad job motion either.

    The motion and the way it was done was a terrible political stunt. If Harper really wants support and consensus, he would do this fairly. But that's not really what he wants.

    I mean, even Don Martin thinks he's being a jerk about this, and he's hardly a Liberal or an NDP fanboy...

    By Blogger Mike, at 4:33 p.m.  

  • Dude, when you say "nay" to the motion of "should Canada extend the mission", you're voting against the mission.

    If you want to abstain, go ahead. That's fine.

    By Blogger matt, at 5:33 p.m.  

  • Getting really ticked off that everybody thinks parliament is in the dark on Afghanistan.

    I invite everyone to go to the parliament of canada website and look up the more than 18 parliament committee reports on Afghanistan since we went to Kabul, and then changed the mission to Khandahar. You can actually see the list of experts each committee has consulted. We're talking about house AND senate committees. Then after that, go read about the London Conference where the criteria for the success of Afghanistan was laid out. That conference has been the beacon which Canada and other countries work towards. After that, take a browse through universities across Canada where DND, DFAIT, NGO and other groups have visited to discuss Afghanistan and what Canada does there, and what NGO's do.

    THEN read the extenuous debates (THREE OF THEM) that we have had in parliament on the latest mission in Khandahar. If you don't think THAT's enough look up how many MP's, Cabinet Ministers (both parties) and the PRIME MINISTER have gone to Afghanistan. What were they there sippin latte's the whole time?

    THEN if you really think that this is some kind of new issue, go read the report on the responsibility to protect Afghanistan from, get this, MAY 2001!!!!!! That's right, before we even invaded this country we were already committing ourselves.

    CG and others who complain we don't know enough are just plugging their ears. Committees, MP's, government, universities and even the MEDIA have been discussing the mission. Look up the end of Harper's speech on Wednesday night for exactly what was voted on. 1.) money for an embassy 2.) increased money for development assistance 3.) extension of current mission and deployment

    WOOOAH look at how much of that is new? Guess we haven't had enough time to talk about Afghanistan yet? Sure the timing of the vote was crass, and it was for political reason but man, Liberals need to get on our game we know this issue let's OWN it! Criminee stop complaining we don't know anything!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 5:34 p.m.  

  • To anyone using the 'bad process' argument to defend the LPC's indecisiveness:

    The vote was rushed to Parliament. Yes, it was. But that was only made possible because the House gave UNANIMOUS consent to hold the vote on short notice. If the Liberals, or any opposition party was that choked about the RUSH to decide, they could have spoken up when presented the opportunity. But they didn't.

    That having been said, I'd say it was a good week for the Liberals. Instead of talking about how corrupt and contemptous of taxpayer's money they are (as per the AG's report on Tuesday), people are talking about how fickle and directionless they are, which is a step up, methinks.

    By Blogger FRANCISM, at 5:36 p.m.  

  • If it was a staight up vote on continuing the mission or supporting the mission, you could make a better case against those who opposed it.

    But that's not what this vote was. Which is why I really don't think people should get too worked up about it unless they hear MPs explain why they voted for or against it.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 5:37 p.m.  

  • Crap. Seven Star Hand is on to me with the book of Bart stuff! It won't be long before people realize the clues I've left in the last 500 posts and the horrific truth they will reveal once deciphered!

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 5:39 p.m.  

  • PS,

    the Da-Vinci nut who posted earlier was really creepy. Buddy, the book is FICTION. I know it, my dog knows it, the old woman down the street knows it. Relax I'm not going to go out tomorrow and take up satanism cause I watched Harry Potter and the Da Vinci Code all in the same week.......

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 6:31 p.m.  

  • Stephen Harper is no Tom Hanks. I'm just saying.

    By Blogger Havril, at 6:34 p.m.  

  • Grit, Kandahar is not Kabul. Given what is involved, they are two different missions. Kabul was worth while. Kandahar is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Anyway, what surprises me is this. So far no Liberal leadership hopeful has come out against the Kandahar mission. Some have ventured a few cautious words and then quickly qualified them by noting that they “support our troops”. However, whenever the subject has come up most Liberals candidates have tried to switch the topic to more substantive questions such as the history of flag lowering. Ignatieff is the exception. However much I wish the Iraq adventure would render him once bitten twice shy, he is showing the same love of self flagellation as Christopher Hitchens. I vehemently disagree with what he says of course, but if I skip the apparently request BS at the beginning of his speeches at least I do not get nauseous listening to him as I do the others. Some of the others have not yet learned that the ramblings of “activist” hotheads such as Hiller aside, whether the military wants to be deployed in Kandahar for three years, the decision is not the military’s to make. It is not unpatriotic or “unsupportive” for government decide not to deploy troops to a region that in no way serves Canadian interests. Those Liberals candidates that seem content to want adopt the “we support our troops” dribble would do well to recognize how far such a tactic got the Democrats during Bush’s first term. They should also realize that paying tribute and debate are not one and the same and debate about a Kandahar mission is not a signal to throw the military love in.

    All that being said, I am surprised that not one candidate, especially one of the bit players, has come out against the Kandahar mission. Hedy Fry what do you have to loose? It seems the party brass has learned nothing from the Dean phenomena and prefers to remain soulless and disconnected from its base. Indeed, from what I seen so far, the candidates seem content not to venture beyond the platform that Canadians rejected on January 23.

    By Blogger Koby, at 7:10 p.m.  

  • I left the following comments on Michael Igantieff's website in the comments section below the quotes posted there from the M.P. for Etobicoke-Lakeshore from his remaks during the parliamentary debate on the Afghanistan gambit bunfight...don't know whether Ignatieff's webmaster will post them, so I thought I'd leave them here (note the Kinsella-Stock Day 'blarney' buddies crack at the end):

    It seems that Mr. Harper has used the Afghanistan mission--shamefully on the very day of the tragic loss of our first female officer in that desolate and corrupt country--to exploit key policy differences between the centre-left Liberal leadership contenders and the two apparently more centre-right leaning contenders, Messrs. Brison et Igatieff.

    Given that Harper will likely resort to any pretext (eg. forcing a money bill vote or declaring an upcoming vote a vote of confidence) to try and engineer a snap election before the Liberal leadership convention is held in December, I wondered whether Mr. Ignatieff would agree that it might be a good idea for all of the contenders with seats in parliament to agree to abstain from voting on such bogus ideological traps designed by Mr. Harper and his spin merchants.

    Secondly, I wonder if in retrospect Bill Graham ought to have exerted his authority as interim leader of her majesty's loyal opposition by withdrawing his troops from the house until such a time as the Rt. Hon. Mr. Harper and cohorts agreed to conduct house business with a semblance of integrity on such vital principles as Canada's participation in the international war on terror.

    Thirdly, I wonder what Mr. Iganatieff's thoughts are with regard to the matter of Canada now openly committing its troops to the Afghan mission on an openly avowed longterm basis--perhaps in an even more enhanced leadership role in the coming months--ie. for what looks to be at least a three-year point being does this sort declaration of intent cum rash bravado not serve to invite direct tactical retaliation by terrorists or would-be terrorists against Canadians on our own home turf, thereby in fact needlessly provoking the security threats Mr. Harper claims to be acting to protect all us from domestically.

    Finally, it is not without a considerable degree of irony that I note that Stockwell Day and his erstwhile Liberal antagonist Warren 'WarKins' Kinsella, lately a waste industry lobbyist and rebarbative National Post cloumnist & political blogger, now seem to be entirely on the same disturbingly simplistic 'blarney' wavelength, each invoking the seemingly self-fulfilling certainty of the same sorts of horrific domestic terror attacks visted earlier upon millions of Britons, Spaniards and Americans.

    By Blogger ISD aka MoDuv, at 11:08 p.m.  

  • We're talking about several "missions" here people.

    In 2003 Canada deployed 2000 troops for the International Security Assistance Force, (ISAF) under Chretien's leadership.

    The mission was to provide security and stability to the new Afghan government in Kabul.

    An exit strategy was developed to deploy the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) of 200-300 troops after one year and pull out of combat operations (ISAF) in Kabul.

    In early 2005, it was decided that the PRT would be deployed to Khandahar. Martin relunctantly approved the extension of a 1000 troop combat deployment for one year only, with the assurance from General Hillier that we would still be able to respond in Darfur or Haiti when needed.

    ISAF was only to stay one more year. PRT was meant to stay indefinately to continue reconstruction work while the counter insurgency deployment was removed and handed over to another partner in NATO.

    The debate on Wednesday evening did not need to be framed as all or nothing. Retaining PRT in Khandahar or even increasing their size while removing (ISAF) to respond in other regions is the option that was what Matrtin intended and should have been hammered home by ALL Liberals in Parliament.

    Now Mr. Harper wants carte blance for a combat mission until 2009. This is not our responsibility or our traditional role in the world.

    Not meaningless I think to redefine our place in the world Calgary and how that world will regard us.

    By Blogger S.K., at 11:57 p.m.  

  • Hey,

    Do you know you can get an american idol coin which will feature 2 finalists on 2 sides? Well, I got mine from

    C ya.

    By Blogger idolfan987, at 12:36 a.m.  

  • I thought the whole thing was absurd. What were they even voting on?

    Say yes we stay 2 years, say no we stay only 1. It's not like any option provided for an actual withdrawel.

    I'm happy to have our military stay and support a worthy mission. I thought the display in the house was unworthy of our miliary.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 12:41 a.m.  

  • Jeez CG
    Turn of the anonymous comments and see what you get, outed as the grand master of the priory of sion (yes I am ashamed to admit I read the book)
    Now you are turning into ebay for American Idol fans, wow.

    Me I am going through your last 500 posts with a fine toothed fibonicci sequence looking fo rthe truth about everything!
    Maybe my magic american idol decoder coin will help when I get it.

    By Blogger Aristo, at 10:58 a.m.  

  • Jeffrey Simpson's piece in the Globe today (May 20, 2006) is required reading for all Liberals.

    By Blogger Lorne, at 12:11 p.m.  

  • Once again Calgary Grit has it wrong. This is a vote to tie up Canadian Military resources for the next two years. This is a vote that does not provide flexibility for the Canadian government to respond to other crisis around the world. This is a vote that says yes to Afghanistan and no to a significant presence in Darfur until 2009.

    Individuals like Ignatieff and Brison clearly did not think through the subsequent consequences of a vote of support for this mission. They both jumped on the opportunity to differntiate themselves in the Liberal leadership race. They should come out and explain why we needed to vote on this right now. Why could we not wait until Decemeber of 2006 to determine if we wanted to extend the mission. Why could we not have a full debate with the Canadian people. It is no surprise to me that the "Philosopher King" Ignatieff, a man who has not been in this country for 30 years, came in and autocratically determined that he knew what was best, without any public consultation with individuals such as General Hillier, or interested groups that may have other missions that they feel are more pressing for Canadian interests.

    It is sad that Calgary Grit does not think that there should be proper consultation by our elected officials before we send our troops to war. To treat this decision with the attention and care that the city of Calgary treats snow removal is disgraceful, and it is disgraceful that Calgary Grit could not find it in him to come out strongly on either side of this issue, rather waffling in the middle.

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 1:43 p.m.  

  • Interesting blog. I can see that you've done a lot of work on it.

    Emini Futures Day Trader

    By Blogger TradingCourses, at 6:00 p.m.  

  • Such a good post, My partner and i appreciated it a whole lot! Nice sense of style! Amazing photos! Buy Runescape Money
    Guild wars 2 CD KEY

    By Anonymous Diablo 3 Items, at 3:04 a.m.  

  • The reason behind this can be really goal : WvW cards allow you to build your own figure just isn't a whole lot worse than the normal D3 Gold, since accomplishment regarding certain duties get knowledge karma as well as silver.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:38 a.m.  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 11:43 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home