Propaganda in action: The closure of the Hershey plant

Welcome to the second installment in the ongoing series “Propaganda in action”.  In each installment, I analyse a current event’s coverage through multiple media outlets in the West to uncover the hidden, systemic propaganda in our speciously-free media.  (For the original installment on Pinochet’s death, click here).

As Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman note in their “propaganda model”, what characterizes propaganda in the West is not so much that what gets covered are lies.  For the most part, journalists are honest people who want to do good in life and in their employment.  Rather, our experience with propaganda is centred around sins of omission.  Let’s explore with reference to the media’s coverage of the Hershey corporation’s closure of its Canadian flagship plan in Smiths Falls (just outside of Ottawa).

Here’s what the Canadian media – even the supposedly “left-wing media” (and even that supposed bastion of socialism:  the CBC) – had to say about the closure.

#1)  The CBC

“Hershey confirms Smiths Falls plant will close”

This story on the plant closure demonstrates several levels of propaganda very much in line with Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model. 

Firstly, the story is told almost exclusively from the perspective of management.  The corporation, or its spokesperson, Kirk Saville, is given a total of precisely 100 words. The union, or its spokesperson, Henry Gadhan, is given just 19 words.

Secondly, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the Hershey factory is the primary employer of the small town of less than 10,000 people.  Moreover, nowhere in the article is it mentioned that this move will essentially destroy not only the city’s primary industry, but will destroy the property value of anybody who lives there.

Thirdly, nowhere is the corporation’s reasons for relocating to Mexico given.  In fact, even the new location for Hershey’s factory (Mexico) isn’t given at all.

#2) A Channel News

Smiths Falls Hershey Plant Closing?

This article is in some ways better and in some ways worse than the CBC article.

On the one hand, this article does mention that 1500 jobs are going to be lost. 

But on the other hand, it failed to mention the union, it’s spokesperson or its reaction to the whole story all the while giving time to management.  It also failed to mention the kiss of death that this move brings to Smiths Falls.  Lastly it also failed to mention the corporation’s reasons for relocating to Mexico. 

#3)  The Globe and Mail

Hershey plant closing in Smiths Falls, Ont.

Like the A Channel story, this story does mention employee numbers, however this story claims that only 500 jobs will be lost.

Also like the A Channel story, this story gives space for the corporation’s spokesperson without also giving any time to the union, its spokesperson or any employees.

This story quotes Premier Dalton McGuinty who claims to have phoned the corporation but gave up after he discovered that, as he says, “They just don’t seem to be particularly receptive to that [keeping the plant open in Canada].”

Again, nowhere does the story quote the reasons for the plants closure and nowhere is the ruinous impact on Smiths Falls homeowners or the community discussed.

#4)  CTV

Hershey workers protest Ont. plant’s closure

This article starts off from the perspective of the townspeople and the workers.  In fact the first quote of the story even goes to a union representative.

This story goes on to note that the plant will be moved to Mexico.  The story also notes that the closure will be “devastating” to Smiths Falls, admitting, in the final sentence of the story that there will be a net loss of about 1500 jobs. 

However, when it came time to discuss the the reasons why this plant closed down, the story shifts to Conservative MP Scott Reid’s account:

“He wouldn’t link Smiths Falls’ woes to the expansion of free trade in North America.

“‘There have been positive and negative impacts. I don’t think they affect small towns more or less than larger places, per se,’ he said.”

So there you have it folks.  That’s Scott Reid’s account.  We may not know what caused it, but whatever it was, it sure wasn’t NAFTA because, I presume, under his reasoning, small towns don’t get screwed any more than big towns do.

#5)  The Ottawa Sun

Bitter day for Falls

Like the CTV story, this story deserves praise for portraying the public and specific labourers – although it does noticeably go to the trouble of interviewing a plant worker tell personal (but touching) stories while avoiding any mention of the union or its representatives.  In fact both times the word “union” appears in the entire story are when the word is uttered by the corporate spokesperson Kirk Saville fawning over the corporation’s plans to “move forward” and co-operate in keeping the union informed.

Second, the story somehow comes up with the figure that 800 jobs will be lost – a figure not found in any other news story from any other news outlet – and thus grossly under-represents the actual number of net jobs that will be lost.

Third, interestingly,, nowhere in the story is it written that the corporation decided to close the plant or that it was the corporation which caused this to happen.  The events are thus portrayed without a causal actor which reduces the author to speaking of the situation as merely a chain of unfortunate events like a freak weather phenomenon destroying a trailer park.  In fact, since the only reporting of the corporation in the story is about its plans to co-operate and communicate with all, the corporation comes off appearing to be helping the employees deal with this situation rather than as the cause of the suffering in the first place.

Fourthly, once again no reason is given as to why the corporation made the decision to close the plant down.


So what does this tell us?  Well, clearly there are variants within the styles of propaganda that we get.  So on the so-called”left” of the spectrum, we have CTV and the CBC at least acknowledging the existence of a union and/or quoting its spokesperson (albeit at a far lesser rate than the corporate spokesperson).

In the center, we have A Channel and the Globe and Mail which aren’t even bothered to give the labour side of the story by omitting to quote from any union representatives or union members.  Thus, the only side of the story we are given is the management side.

And then, on the far right of the spectrum, we have the Ottawa Sun which treats the whole event like a natural disaster without discussion of causality, the union, union representatives and actually makes the corporation look like it is the one helping employees through this difficult time rather than as the cause of this situation in the first place.

So, ladies and gentlemen, that is the variety we have between our “left wing” news and our right wing news in the West.

What is interesting is that not one story discussed a reason for why the factory decided to close down this plant which had been in operation for over 40 years and which, several employees noted, the corporation had recently spent not insignificant capital upgrading the machinery.

The only mention of NAFTA – an agreement whose stated purpose is to increase the flow and mobility of capital in order to do exactly this – was to assure us that it wasn’t a factor in the corporation’s decision.

There was no mention that it’s the nature of capitalism to be legally required to constantly seek legal, sustainable and growing income for the corporation and thus, the corporation’s feduciary responsibilities as a publicly-traded company require it do harm its employees in such manners.  In fact, the only time when harm is mentioned in any of these stories, it is intensely personal.  In one story, in fact, the decision is attacked, not as management increasing its profits while harming employees and not as a natural consequence of capitalism – but rather as a “stupid decision”; a miscalculation.

In the Soviet Union, the newspaper Pravda got very good at exposing incompetent comissars or incompetent managers who made “stupid decisions”.  If they didn’t order or produce enough tractors which resulted in food shortages, this was permitted to be blamed on such individuals.  But never, in any of the Soviet publications, was the legitimacy or efficacy of their form of state capitalism allowed to be questioned.

In the West, the only difference is that, instead of a juridical structure censoring this sort of discussion as in the USSR, we have economic and ideological structures which function to censor our press.  We, like the USSR, are permitted (depending on which publication we read) to attack the intelligence of the corporate management or deride them as “stupid”.  But never will the media question the unpleasant aspects of the capitalist system – even aspects which are so uncontroversial that Adam Smith noted them.  These facts would be openly available and discussion in 5 of the leading publications would have turned at least briefly to them…. in an open society.

26 Responses to “Propaganda in action: The closure of the Hershey plant”

  1. 1 Doug 27 February, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Well done, Paul. This is a great analysis!

    Your conclusions are spot on, too (it’s always a treat to hear a non-ISer mention state capitalism!).

    The factory’s closure as “miscalculation” or “mistake” is tied up with the ahistorical nature of bourgeois modes of inquiry. Alex Callinicos, a British Marxist, once described this as the “cock-up theory of history” – everything is a series of accidents, coincidences and unintended consequences. The role of such an approach simultanously denies agency (especially for collective actors) and denies any influence from historically-shaped material and social circumstances. As your analysis points out, in lieu of a theory of history that has any relevance to reality, the individual becomes the sole actor, making history regardless of their circumstances in which they live. Hence capitalism’s tremendous ability to produce scapegoats. The only bourgeois concession to collective actors is when it wants to demonize a section of society for somehow single-handidly ruining the mythical “good” of the status quo society: Jews, Muslims, women, gays, “liberals”, etc.

    The IS club is going to put together another edition of the Agitator ( for the end of the school year – would you consider submitting a version of this piece to it?


  2. 2 Larry Gambone 27 February, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Really a fine piece of work, Paul! I look forward to similar analyses in the future.

  3. 3 Big Guy in TB 28 February, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    As a capitalist, I could engage you in a lengthy discussion and debate about the merits of capitalism compared to your preferred style of democracy, but thats not the point of this response.

    I assume that journalists today (or at least a majority of them) have a university education and what is it that they are taught? Certainly not problem-solving skills or critical thinking or independent investigating skills. I submit to you that most journalists today sit in on a press conference, with a slick PR person representing the company, or read the hard copy of a press release, and from that write their story. It is indeed a curious notion that I don’t understand that a number of people can see or attend at the same event and give totally different accounts. Yes some will put their own spin on it (which I abhor). I say just give me the facts and let me draw my own conclusions.

    In terms of the people of Smiths Falls, I suppose I am numb to the fact that another large industry in a small town has or is closing for whatever reason. Living in Northwestern Ontario, the news of large businesses closing up shop has been and continues to be regular news item here, over the past 30 years. For example and off the top of my head consider:

    Kenora – Abitibi shut down its paper mill last year

    Atikokan – Steep Rock Iron Mines and Caland Ore shut down operations in the early 80’s. A replacement industry (whose name escapes me for the moment) manufacturing strandboard has recently shut down. There was talk the Ontario Power Generation might shut down the hydo plant there as well, but that is on hold, for now.

    Ignace – Bowater shut down the sawmill there last year

    Thunder Bay – in the early 1980’s there were 4 paper mills here. Now there is one (the latest announcement of a shutdown came a week ago), and not operating at near capacity. The grain elevators have about one-third the employees now that they had in the 1970’s.

    Red Rock – Norampac shut down its containerboard plant last year.

    Nipigon – Fire completely destroyed the plywood mill there 2 weeks ago.

    Longlac – the plywood mill there was shuttered last year.

    Marathon – is already feeling the effect of the wind-down of the gold mines at Hemlo.

    Manitouwadge – had its mine close down about 20 years ago

    White River – Domtar shut down its sawmill last year

    and on and on it goes……………

    So there is lots of gloomy news in Northwestern Ontario, and I’m certain other parts of the province as well. Some were closed for economic reasons, and others were unavoidable. Everyone knows that if a small community is dependent on a single industry, and that industry decides to shut down or closes for any reason, it is a complete disaster for the community and it’s citizens. But where does a company’s responsibility for employees end? I submit to you that beyond paying them their salaries, severence, and other mandated amounts, companies in general do have no legal obligation to treat their employees as if they were their own children and provide for them. No company has reserves on their balance sheets to provide for wholesale relocation, or payments to employees to counter any perceived drop in property values. If they did have this obligation where would it stop? It would be endless.

    Any individuals who invest in the creation of a company, should have the say in how the company is run and and the right to reap the rewards of success. In the same breath, they risk losses if they are not successful. And who will reimburse the owners for losses? The answer is no one. Employees take none of the investment risks, and as such, the corporate direction is out of their hands and in the hands of those that made the risks in the first place.

    I would have a hard time believing that this all came as a complete shock to the Hershey employees. No doubt there were aware of what was going on. The real shock for the employees would be the reality when Hersheys actually announced the shut down. Clearly if they are relocating to Mexico, two things are considered: 1)lower labour costs and 2)new and innovative technology to reduce as much of the human element in their manufacturing process. This is nothing new. Manufacturing companies are always searching for ways to reduce labour costs, either thru lower pay rates and benefits or updated technologies. No doubt NAFTA plays a big role in this, and Smiths Falls is not the only city to have companies close and reset up shop in Mexico – NAFTA was a horrible arrangement for Canada. I was satisfied with the Canada-US FTA because our labour rates were reasonably similar, and I thought overall that it would be a win-win situation for both countries.

    I am bewildered by your comment quoted below:

    “There was no mention that it’s the nature of capitalism to be legally required to constantly seek legal, sustainable and growing income for the corporation and thus, the corporation’s feduciary responsibilities as a publicly-traded company require it do harm its employees in such manners.”

    What law states that a company is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO SEEK LEGAL, SUSTAINABLE, AND GROWING INCOME? I would argue that this statement is completely false and there is no such law in Canada, for either publically traded or privately held companies. If companies fail to increase their incomes two things happen. They make less money or worse they lose money. If they lose enough money they go out of business.

    It is a sad story for all of Smiths Falls. Regrattably, this same sort of event will happen in another small town in Canada, and probably before the end of March. Companies can only grow or stagnate. If they stagnate, they will ultimately be forced to close their doors.

  4. 4 RPJ 28 February, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    Going in a different direction, I am a little surprised that the news of the Hershey plant closing was not viewed by you as a somewhat positive event, notwithstanding the fact that it will be very painful for Smith Falls. How can I say this you ask? Well, take a look at the banner you are using on this page. I personally see the steps toward gloabalizing economies as the steps toward a more leveling of those same economies all around the world. Damn, it is sure going to be painful for those of us here in the west that have enjoyed all our luxuries to look at losing that high ground in a major way. But we have long had the opportunity to equal out the world’s fortunes voluntarily and have chosen not to do that or at best to do it in only a microscopic fashion. Now, it will be taken out of our hands and the cold corporate machine will do if for us. Not because it is right or because they want to do it out of the goodness of their hearts (machines don’t have them) but because it is just a by-product of how they operate. So, finally the Mexicans will get the jobs that they have been climbing fences and swimming rivers to obtain. Once they are fatter and their pay rates rise another poor nation will benefit and be elevated in turn. In the meantime, these reallocated dollars are all coming from the richer nations, with the richest giving the most (poetically). Now don’t get me wrong, this is not the solution that I would have chosen but I do feel it is a type of solution in its own right (ugly, painful and unstopable). With that said, what I next look at is what effect will this have on us back here in the “formerly wealthy” West? What we will have is a huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a minuscule number of people and almost no remaining upper middle, middle, or lower middle class to act as a buffer against the poorest of us. Most of us will be the “poorest of us”. At this point, capitalism will have lost a whole bunch of its “lustre” in the eyes of the new masses. The opiate of the “American Dream” or the “Canadian Dream” will no longer pacify the masses by lulling them into the same stupor that causes people to buy lottery tickets. The belief that they are the ones who are going to win. Better psychologists than I could likely predict the next consequences much better than I can, but I do believe that the masses will not be happy and will come together in some fashion to redistribute the wealth of the billionaires that up until then has been untouchable and growing faster than any cancer. So Paul, you may just get your death of Capitalism yet… or maybe not. But it is an intriguing exercise trying to decide which way the proletariat will move, because they will surely move.

  5. 5 paulitics 2 March, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Big Guy from TB – I thank you for your lengthy delineation of the impacts of highly mobile capital on the various communities in Northern Ontario.

    I must, however, disagree with your attack on journalists en masse. I do not disagree because I am not highly critical of the media: in fact, as a Marxist who has a keen interest in media studies, I can say that I am quite possibly one of the most critical media analysts I know. That said, I believe your attack on journalists is misguided. I believe you should be looking more to systemic influences on media content rather than merely some “unintelligent” or “bad” people control the press. The first approach is scholarship backed up by mounds of literature. The second approach is borderline conspiracy theory-esque and is akin to what the right wing’s criticism of the media is based on – namely that socialists control the media personally.

    If you believe that I am out of line in this, I may quote from a source – another fierce critic of the media – who I know has influenced both you and I significantly: namely Noam Chomsky. In his work “Necessary Illusions”, Chomsky writes at the bottom of page 11 and carrying over into page 12 that:

    “Journalists often meet a high standard of professionalism in their work, exhibiting courage, integrity, and enterprise, including many of those who report for media that adhere closely to the predictions of the propaganda model. There is no contradiction here. What is at issue is not the honesty of the opinions expressed or the integrity of those who seek the facts but rather the choice of topics and highlighting of issues.”

    Noam Chomsky is one the fiercest critic of the media I’ve ever read and if even he praises this aspect of it, I feel that you’re going to have to back up your claims against journalists with significantly more evidence before I can accept them.

    Secondly, you write that:

    “I submit to you that beyond paying them their salaries, severance, and other mandated amounts, companies in general do have no legal obligation to treat their employees as if they were their own children and provide for them. No company has reserves on their balance sheets to provide for wholesale relocation, or payments to employees to counter any perceived drop in property values.”

    I believe this point can be taken as a truism. I don’t think there is any capitalist or Marxist who would disagree that corporations are under no legal obligation to do a number of things you mentioned. For instance, corporations are under no legal obligation to pay more than starvation wages. Corporations are under no legal obligation to prevent the destruction of a community like Smiths Falls if it will interfere with that corporation’s duty to earn greater profits.

    So, on this front, I feel compelled to ask: What is your point?

    Thirdly, you wrote that:

    “What law states that a company is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO SEEK LEGAL, SUSTAINABLE, AND GROWING INCOME? I would argue that this statement is completely false and there is no such law in Canada, for either publically traded or privately held companies.”

    I would suggest to you that you do some research before claiming that I spouted falsehoods on this blog. In fact, there is an extensive legal background, buttressed by legal precedent, going back over 100 years in both this country and in the United States. In fact, I exchanged e-mails on this very subject with noted law professor and author of the novel “The Corporation” (which was turned into a documentary) Dr. Joel Bakan in early October of 2005.

    In these e-mails Dr. Bakan noted to me that it is both “common law and some statutory instruments” in Canada which form the basis of fiduciary responsibility or duty.

    In the United States, fiduciary responsibility’s statutory codification was most famously enshrined and codified in the case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company (1919).

    For more reading on this topic, Dr. Bakan suggested that I read his work “Just Words” (sadly, however, although I purchased the book, I have not yet read it), however I can also suggest Bakan’s aforementioned work “The Corporation” as well as the chapter on egalitarianism in Jarred Diamond’s new book “Collapse” wherein he discusses the case of Dodge v. Ford in its broader historical and anthropological context.


    RPJ – I thank you for your comments.

    You write that:

    “I am a little surprised that the news of the Hershey plant closing was not viewed by you as a somewhat positive event, notwithstanding the fact that it will be very painful for Smith Falls. How can I say this you ask? Well, take a look at the banner you are using on this page. I personally see the steps toward globalizing economies as the steps toward a more levelling of those same economies all around the world.”

    I find your logic to be specious. I was not opposing this outsourcing on the grounds of parochial sympathy for the proletariat of Smiths Falls at the expense of the proletariat in Mexico. I oppose this oursourcing on systemic, economic and philosophical grounds.

    Your logic is centred around the common neo-liberal rhetoric that reducing labour laws, protectionist laws, tariffs and taxes will have an overall “levelling” effect on the global economy as all of these will have the effect of making capital more mobile. What disproves this rhetoric are: History and Neo-Kensyian economic theory (to say nothing of socialist or Marxist theory).

    If mobile capital truly did create a “levelling” effect than the countries that implemented the so-called “Washington Consensus” would have a more equal distribution of income and a greater standard of living than backwards, protectionist, socialist economies. In fact, history demonstrates this not to be the case. Argentina utterly collapsed in 1999 and is still recovering from its experiment with neo-liberalism.

    The illustration of Argentina is important, but is nowhere near the sole example. What this point demonstrates is that when corporations re-locate into these poor countries, the corporations do not normally end up feeding the local economy since there exist no labour laws and as such, starvation wages are common (which, after all, is the very reason which draws corporations to these economies in the first place.

    Moreover, Mexico has had terrible living standards, starvation wages and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the form of these outsourcing corporations for years. What is the result? Well, you noted it yourself when you wrote about Mexicans “climbing fences and swimming rivers” to get out of Mexico. In fact, the rate of exodus has not decreased. The most significant increase in the Mexican standard of living came when President Lázaro Cárdenas – the left wing president criticized by neo-liberals as a “socialist” – was in office. Not when the pro-US, pro-neo-liberal Presidents were in office.

    I could go on and on about how these developing countries attempt to fight against this, and as such do not consider this quite the blessing that you do, but I believe my point is clear.


    P.S. Big Guy from TB & RPJ – my apologies for leaving my responses to your comments so long.

  6. 6 RPJ 2 March, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Thanks Paul, but I stand by my statements. Corporations will go wherever the labour is cheapest, and move on to the next untapped cheap labour source when the wages where they are rise as they always do. This has no ability to do anything else but level the playing field globally. If you don’t think the American and Canadian workers are losing ground with this exodus of jobs I invite you to look into this more carefully. As for Mexico, as with anywhere else, the upward movement on wages will not occur until a certain level of employment is achieved (this is why you haven’t seen the effect yet). As long as there is a ready labour pool willing to work for pesos the wage will stay at pesos. It is simply supply and demand. If you don’t see how this works and will work you could look into some study on how markets work. Just a suggestion of course. You don’t even have to look very far for specific examples of this phenomena in action. During times of high unemployment, wages stagnate and in some instances actually drop. During times of high employment, companies have to start paying a premium to compete for good employees. I’ve been around long enough to have lived through both cycles more than once. One thing I do want to emphasise though, is that I did not mean to imply that you would prefer to see Smith Falls prosper at the expense of Mexicans. I know that is not the case. I felt that your response to Smith Falls was a gut response and I wanted to draw your attention to the larger picture involved. Life can sometimes suck and often does but I do feel society has a way of self-correcting when we get too far out of line. It is often painful (learning always is) but we can work with the rhythms and adapt as best we can. I do chastise us for our previous selfishness and nearsightedness that has caused us to leave our global neighbours crying in hunger and also standing idly by while rapacious corporations stripped raw materials and natural resources with the help of corrupt political officials in these same places. Canada is actually in this situation but it is currently somewhat concealed by our current standard of living. By the time the Canadian public wakes up and realizes what happened, their resources will be gone and so will their jobs. We will soon get to feel exactly what it has been like in some of these poorer depleted nations.

  7. 7 paulitics 3 March, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    RPJ – I don’t disagree with you that “Corporations will go wherever the labour is cheapest” That’s a natural fact of the capitalist system. Thus I wasn’t arguing that these were just “bad” capitalists – in fact as far as capitalists go, they’re doing their job exactly as the system intended them to do it. What I was disagreeing with was the one-sided nature of the discourse.

    Moving on, you write that “This has no ability to do anything else but level the playing field globally.” This statement is a precept of Milton Friedman’s neo-liberal theory of Monetarism and as such, your assertion that ths statement is a truism is false. What this precept really is, is somewhat contentious theory.

    If I felt that this statement, as you articulated it, were true then I would be a complete hypocrite for opposing this move by the corporation given the banner I use on this blog. Thus, I believe it is necessary to admit that neo-liberal globalization and laissez-faire economic policy is not proven to level the economic field as you suggest.

    The point however is not one of economic theory per se. The point is that not one of the major news publications in this country even gave consideration to the other entire sphere of economic theory. None gave equal consideration between bourgeois economic theory and more progressive, proletarian-focussed economic theory. Thus, in this post, I wasn’t saying that Friedman’s Monitarism is incorrect (since I am not trained as an economist). What I was merely saying is that, if we did live in a truly free society with truly free discourse, then equal consideration would have been given to the entire other side of the debate which posits that these moves do not in fact benefit proletarians in the long run – be they Mexican or Canadian.

  8. 8 Ryan 29 March, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Take form the rich and give to the poor?

  9. 9 Brodie 10 July, 2008 at 12:26 am

    As a former Smiths Falls Hershey employee of 20 years, I thank you Paul for printing this analogy now I shall give the reasons in my opinion this plant is being moth balled: 1) Incompetent and unimaginative management. 2) Corruption and unethical practices 3) CAW, which was the worst thing that ever happened to Hershey Smiths Falls in my opinion and its funny how the employees never had a choice when CAW was introduced, they just appeared and did absolutely nothing for employees except take their monthly booty. 4) Hershey corporate hired a Moron named Rick Lenny and gave him absolute power over this company and its board of directors, a man who had zero knowledge of chocolate production yet still was paid a huge salary even though he failed to produce results time and time again…..The irony of this whole thing is that Hershey Smiths Falls in over 40 years of production always made huge profits for its shareholders and still could be today. Hershey never even tried to work with their employees or the town to secure it future in Smiths Falls they just up and abandoned a town which they tried to turn into a mini Hershey P.A…….. Free trade and greed are at the heart of this manufacturing job loss merry go round Ontario seems to be on. Hershey would have never moved to Mexico if free trade did not allow them too. Sir John A MacDonald the father of this great country put tariffs in place to protect Canada from what is happening today, maybe we need to resurrect him so that some form of intelligence political bargaining can take place before everyone in Canada is on welfare. 33 million people in Canada can never compete with China, India or Mexico …….So remember the next time you purchase your chocolate treats in the corner store ask yourself where are they being produced….Bon apetite

  10. 10 EmaiceArebram 1 November, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Great website. Tell me about my huge seller Oh, good joke) What do you call Santa’s helpers? Subordinate Clauses.

  11. 15 Eczrccqt 2 May, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    History model kid nn haha its always funny when someone comes and comments all angry trying to act like theres something worth getting mad about, when in reality, they are just mad because they cant get any pussy, all they do is sit here beatin it lol fuckin losers

  12. 16 Lbxecgzf 3 May, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    Photography nymphet jpg index sefinately a hot threesome!!! and yeah maulz i agree with you about the moaning in way too many of these clips.

  13. 17 Xgdixipt 5 May, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    I’m in my first year at university preteen feet sex love how her huge tits hang and flop while shes riding him and sucking him off. also like that hairy pussy

  14. 18 camaras de sexo en vivo 9 May, 2020 at 12:00 am

    Tгemendous issues here. I’m very satisfied to seе your post.
    Thank you a lot and I am taкing a look forward to touch you.

    Will you ҝindy drop me a e-mail?

  15. 19 Charlotte 31 May, 2020 at 11:28 am

    Check our privater sexchat poliсy web page.

  16. 20 naked girls webcam 21 August, 2020 at 9:53 am

    Sorrt !w to see the plɑyed !h to show commɑnds.

    Fеel free tto visit my web page :: naked girls webcam

  17. 21 먹튀 26 October, 2020 at 9:15 am

    What’s up, yup this paragraph is truly pleasant and I have learned
    lot of things from it concerning blogging. thanks.

  1. 1 Elevator company ny Trackback on 19 September, 2018 at 1:17 am
  2. 2 Trackback on 24 July, 2020 at 1:24 am
  3. 3 Trackback on 4 October, 2020 at 8:41 am
  4. 4 Tronsr.Org Trackback on 20 October, 2020 at 11:30 am
  5. 5 same time Trackback on 17 March, 2021 at 2:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 863,945 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: