gc1765

The "insiders" that have been appointed are mentioned in the opening post and the link provided in that post.

One other thing I think he didn't explain adequately is why, in his lawsuit against the government, he testified that he never had any dealings with Schreiber? I think it will be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mulroney is guilty, especially when the testimony of Schreiber is not reliable. But, any reasonable person can conclude that this whole thing looks very suspicious, and that Mulroney is almost certainly guilty. Otherwise, there would be no need to lie or change stories.

Strawman alert! I said the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for appointing "insiders". Care to refute that?

A link to the Conservative 2006 platform? Sorry, I assumed you already had it. Here you go: Link When did I mention the accountability act?

It would also be nice to hear Mulroney explain why he originally said the money was to "promote a pasta business". He was asked a question along those lines, and his only response was that it was Schreiber who said that...but in fact Mulroney said that's what the money was for. Why did he change his story? Here's an interesting article on Mulroney's story then vs. now: Link

The Conservative 2006 platform criticizes the Liberals for appointing "insiders", which is exactly what the Conservatives are doing now. To be fair, the last time I remember Harper complaining about patronage appointments took place just before the Conservatives took office (i.e. before the first time they made such a patronage appointment). I guess the (Conservative) government decided not to act to change the rules, so I guess they are simply playing by "the rules"...not that it makes it any better.

Yes that is true. Mulroney stated under oath that he never "had any dealings with Schreiber" and that they met only "once or twice for a cup of coffee". You can view the entire transcript: Here (link)

I thought it was funny how Mulroney denied that he denied (under oath) receiving the money. Another thing I learned today is that he put the money in a safety deposit box instead of a bank account. Is this normal practice? I'm sure it's legal, but it certainly looks suspicious.

It doesn't really bother me that much when people use names like Steve or Paulie. What bothers me more is the hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing something and then doing it yourself. Kind of like Harper and his patronage appointments. See above.

I think it's this: Link

So that's it then? No condemnation? As long as they are better than the last guys, they don't deserve to be criticized? By the way, what's with "Paulie"? I thought you were opposed to names like that? Two wrongs don't make a right...just like two political parties making patronage appointments don't make a right.

Robert Pickton: -Born in Canada -Mid fifties -Found guilty of killing 6 women (and likely killed many, many more) How much did this trial cost the tax payer? A heck of a lot more than your example. ...so, what the heck was your point again??

Actually, I am saying that Bush tried to link al-qaeda and Iraq. I don't remember saying anything about whether Americans believed him or not, but since you brought it up, here you go... Link Link Link

It's hard to take this report seriously when it says things like this: ...but I'll give it a shot anyways: And? Members of al-qaeda are probably living in the U.S. too, so...umm...the U.S. should invade itself? Such as? There they go linking Iraq to 9/11... Such as? And what does this have to do with Iraq? Or are they trying to imply that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11??

I'm guessing English is not your first language, so I'll forgive your atrocious grammar, but what the heck are you trying to say here? Perhaps you have a better explanation for why Bush used the so-called "connection" between Iraq & al-qaeda as justification for the invasion of Iraq??? And how exactly was Iraq supporting al-qaeda?

Of course they posed a threat, but what does that threat have to do with Iraq??? Perhaps you could show me how Iraq was involved in terrorism against the U.S.? Which terrorist acts against the U.S. were committed by Iraq? Again, what does this organization have to do with Iraq?

Of course, but ask the average American what comes to mind when you say "al-qaeda" and I'd bet the vast majority would say 9-11/terrorism.

He linked Iraq to al-qaeda. Do you think he was referring to that OTHER al-qaeda? I mean, the one that wasn't made famous by 9/11? The non-violent al-qaeda? By linking Iraq to the criminals, he is indirectly linking it to the crime. That's like saying that someone has ties to the mafia but is not involved in organized crime

What? Are you trying to say that Bush didn't try to link Iraq with al-qaeda/terrorism/9-11???

What does that work out to, 50 cents an hour??

No, but he also shouldn't have pretended that Iraq had anything to do with the loss of those buildings.

That sounds crazy to me. So, someone convicted of 10 murders could spend the same amount of time in jail as someone convicted of a single murder? I did a bit of research and found this: Did this bill not pass the senate? Link

So, you disagree with Tom Flanagan? Anyways, if Harper does have a hidden agenda (and I'm not saying that he does), do you really think he would bring it out with a minority government? If he tried to do anything too controversial, the government would fall and the Liberals would likely be elected with a majority. If Harper has a hidden agenda, we won't see it with a minority. That's probably why a lot of people who vote Conservative would like to see a minority government, but would never vote for the Conservatives if they thought they might get a majority - and that could have something to do with the fact that the Conservatives have trouble breaking through to majority territory in the polls.

And this is from the party that campaigned on ethics and accountability...

So national pride is the reason you think we should be paying medal winners? Well, I don't see how, for example, flying down a hill in a sled a fraction of a second faster than someone else instills national pride, but maybe that's just me... Personally, I take more national pride in the fact that Canada does a relatively good job of taking care of the poor. I take national pride in our education and healthcare systems. I'm sure many other people agree with me. So if helping the poor instills national pride, shouldn't we fund that instead?