gerryhatrick

While we're quoting rules: NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. I've posted one thread today, and as I've pointed out it's unrelated to yesterdays thread. You have a problem with that newb then hit the report button.

It did happen before he became PM. I think you've been listening to a little too much Frank Luntz yourself. Go see this topic: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6081 to see how silly that looks. Now, care to comment on THIS topic? You know, the controversy surrounding 1.7 million in undeclared donations to the CPC? Or does it not matter of sponsorship?

This is not about the convention fee controversy, it is about Frank Luntz and the parallels between his advice and CPC behavior. And if you look at the alternet link at the bottom you see some more troubling parrellels. Yes, the illegal convention fee contributions are mentioned. So? Are we never allowed to mention them in the context of anything else ever again? Go cite us some more rules on that.

While responding to questions about $1.7 million of undisclosed CPC convention fees Harper said: "All the laws have been obeyed and the Liberals will have to obey them as well - that's the tough part". The Libs got nothing to do with it, so why the mention? During the course of the same controversy the CPC executive director responds by asking the Liberals to also be investigated. Huh? What is going on here? Why, instead of quietly pledging to get to the bottom of the controversy are the Conservatives coming out with guns blazing at the Liberals? Frank Luntz, THAT'S why. In May 2006 Frank Luntz - an American Republican strategist (a "guru") met with Stephen Harper. He also spoke to the "Civitas Society", a powerful Canadian Conservative group that several people from Harpers government are members of. Harpers chief of staff is the director of the Civitas Society. Mr. Luntz's advice to Conservatives during his speech: keep kicking at the Liberals. Keep up the accusations of corruption for another year he said. That explains why the Conservatives can't deal with their election financing controversy without pointing a finger at the Liberals. I think they've taken Luntz's advice to far this time and have come off looking like pathetic babies. But what about game 6 of the Stanley Cup? You know, the game that Harper and several members of his government fandangled tix for and went on a taxpayer funded "boys night out" to watch? The one where the government members took time slots for photo ops sitting with Mr. Harper? Well, turns out Frank Luntz told Conservatives to tap into national symbols like hockey. "If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it." he said. He also advised that images and pictures are important. What he didn't bargain for perhaps is a Canadian electorate that pays a little more attention to detail than it's American counterpart. We don't like being manipulated by Republican "strategists". edit: Here's the link on Frank Luntz advising the CPC. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...911aceb&k=25352 Also worth looking at is this alternet take on Frank Luntz and Canada: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36966/ they point out some interesting parrallels between how Bushs' government has spoken and behaved and how ours is now.

Your vague understanding of Canadian election law is not relavent here. Nor is your question. Read the article. These people all agree that the convention fees are supposed to be declared and members get receipts: Rick Anderson, a top organizer and executive member of both the Reform Party and its successor, the Canadian Alliance Seidle, who is now with the Institute for Research on Public Policy, student of Canadian electoral law, University of Windsor Professor Heather MacIvor, Elections Canada spokeswoman Valerie Hache said the law stipulates that a fee paid to attend a political convention does constitute a donation The talk about "profit" is also shot down. To a layman, it sounds ridiculous. Hey, if the entire campaign didn't score a profit then why declare anything?

He took personal responsibility for dealing with it. In the end, all Liberal cabinet ministers were determined by Gomery to be free from blame or responsibility, and Paul Martin in particular was "exonerated for any blame for carelessness or misconduct". So, whatever. In the case of Stephen Harper he is also probably free of blame, carelessness, and misconduct. The difference here is we see him claiming that what happened was just A-OK and him and his party complaining multiple times about the Liberals in the course of answering this....while the Liberals have nothing to do with it. I think the problem that's emerged for the Conservative party is they've become incapable of answering to anything without including the Liberals in some shape or form. They've been told by an American rightwing think tank to pile on, and they have been. Problem is when something would be more fitting to contrite honesty and a pledge to get to the bottom (as Martin did in the case of sponsorship) then that's what you should do, not point the finger at someone else. Looks....well, pathetic.

Oh look, sour grapes from a troll. How nice.

Another useless anecdote tossed out as though it has relavence to global warming. It does not. If you are going to relate these tidbits as part of your attack on the reality of globa warming you should do a little research. However, I guess truth and accuracy isn't the goal of the denial campaign.

I notice a common theme in your posts. It's the same theme that Harper is employing, which is to deflect responsibility away to another time and place. Paul Martin took responsibility for adscam. So what? That was then, this is now. Harper can't take responsibility, obviously. Not only will he not take responsibility, he's trying to claim all is well AND he's moaning about the Liberals. What pathetic, childish behaviour.

Au Contraire, it is theft. Campaign finance laws are there to ensure fairness in democracy. It appears they broke those laws to the tune of 2 million, and that constitutes a theft. And what's worse is we now here Harper claiming no law was broken. At least with the Liberals we right away saw an admission that something was wrong and an investigation initiated BY the Liberals. In any event, this isn't about the Liberals. Claiming that the Liberals were worse is hardly a defense. It's pretty pathetic, actually. An honest man - a trustworthy man - would stand up and take responsibility without attempting to deflect the issue away to a past UNRELATED issue.

Excuse me? No, this has gone a little beyond that. You're not keeping up with the news, apparently. They are saying they didn't have to declare because they didn't turn a profit. Everyone, even old time Tories and Reform, say that's bullsh@t. Show a little credibility and demand some honesty from what's obviously the party you support rather than attempt to toss the spotlight back on the Liberals. This has nothing to do with the Liberals, and it's not "opponents of the CPC" that came up with it.

That's the same sad BS the Conservartives are playing right now....."but what about the Liberals???? snif snif" You should read this article: http://www.cjad.com/node/376243 The rules are established and understood by old Reform and Alliance. It's not a case of "if we are going down this path", the path is well worn and has been gone down by all the parties for a while, apparently. The CPC just f'd up, and if they were smart they'd admit it and take a fast lump instead of trying to deny and deflect.

http://www.cjad.com/node/376243 At first I thought, OK, they screwed up. Whatever. Pay back what is required/pay a fee/ and let's move on. The media sure hasn't been making a big deal out of it (appeared only as a little sidebar...remember the $380 under-declared accident by Belinda a couple weeks back? front page!) Meh, it's a new government so what the h#ll I thought. But this, this is too much. Instead of dealing with it like men they're whining that they want the Liberals investigated? God, that is pathetic. I hope they get nailed to the wall over it now.

Oh, come on. What sort of a reply is that? I just posted three big juicy paragraphs that I feel neatly make my case for me. The least you could do is hack out some feeble ad hominem against the Academy, if you feel that tackling the relevance of the uncertainties presented in those paragraphs is too much for you. No offense, but I don't see it. Your case being "made" from those paragraphs, that is. In any event, it was written in 2001. Are you aware of the statement issued by the NAS in 2005? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences Guess that makes my case, huh? I think the most interesting thing that perhaps you could address are the 34 abstracts that supposedly "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years", according to Peiser. With the abstracts linked to do you admit that Peiser is another in the long line of deceivers who have joined the "debate" on the "no global warming/no human cause" side?

Seriously?

Sorry 'bout that. Not paying attention to this thread. Your guess was wrong. Regarding the Peiser "study", his big thing was that "34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". In fact, he appears wrong on that: http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ If you don't have time to read the 34 abstracts Peiser claims his "gotcha" on, here's the reaction of others on them: http://crookedtimber.org/2005/05/05/take-t...ing-taste-test/ http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/peisn...-abstracts.html gc1765, you expressed an interest in reading these 34 abstracts. See the Tim Lambert link above and let us know your thoughts. BHS, you provide a link to a 2001 report which you feel supports a claim you made. Which claim was that and where in the report is it supported?

I do not agree that this should be wrapped up into any other thread. This is a significant news item unto itself. This issue is large & evolving enough that multi-threads are expected when anything newsworthy occurs. An AP story about top US climate scientists praising the movie's science accuracy is significant given all of the fuss and opposition this movie has raised. Are we only allowed one Iraq war topic? One Muslim topic? One topic about taxes? Those issues are posted on over and over, and global warming is more important than any of them.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=81325 Time to fact the facts. Time to stop treating this as a partisan issue. It's time to act, to do what we can to mitigate the serious problem we're facing.

Rest here--> http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/15/1/ It goes on to mention how not one scientific peer paper out of 1000 was against the position that it's happening and C02 causes it.

Right. And the earth is currently experiencing global warming due to an increase in human produced C02, more than has EVER BEEN SEEN IN 650,000 YEARS. THAT is in the movie and it's not being challanged by anyone. It's the data from the recent science by real scientists, not "experts" paid for by Exxon. Don't forget that.

I don't get you. Global Warming has all been a trick? Please explain. Have we been tricked? There's no Global Warming?

What's wrong with doing a hatchet job on people doing hatchet jobs? Don't pretend that CanadaFreePress article isn't just a cheap piece of swiftboating. By the way, it is a documentary. You twice placed the word in quotes as if to imply that it's not. Bring yourself to at least that level of honesty

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/27/1/ Rips that dumb article that's making the rounds. It just seems like the opposition to this movie is so...flimsy.

They would serve a purpose if we could have some confidence that the facts were given even the most minimal of checks by the CTF. Obviously they are not. They might also serve a purpose if they didn't knowingly misrepresent the truth, as was the case with the "million dollar toilet". As it stands, the CTF cooked it's own goose with careless accusations and blatent misrepresenting. Credibility is easy to lose, hard to get back.

The CTF is a bad comedy show. The "teddie awards" are their yearly attempt at har har and they continuously fall flat on their faces. As a result, they can't be taken seriously.