gc1765

And risk losing the dozen or so delegates committed to Volpe? Not even a dozen. They would probably lose the support of one delegate (Volpe himself). The rest would vote for whoever they wanted. I doubt any of them would be so commited to volpe that they would avoid voting for someone else just because they called for volpe stepping out.

Even if the polls prove true, without corresponding Liberal stats it means nothing. Sure people might not like the Conservatives (who likes politicians), but they could easily dislike the Liberals more. That stat is truly about as meaningless as it gets. I think it's more important to compare the statistics over time, from July to September (assuming they are accurate). Assuming that people's impressions of the liberals have not dropped the way the conservatives have in the last two months, support for conservatives seems to be decreasing, and it's likely that at least some of those who now disapprove of the government may change their vote. It probably doesn't give as good of an indication as an actual poll on which party a person favours, true, but it shows a general trend.

I forgot to mention that Hedy Fry probably couldn't find two supporters period, let alone two supporters willing to dress up in a ghost costume for her...not even in prince george. For the most part, I'd say the liberal party is the best of the three parties...but it sure has some idiots...then again which party doesn't?

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100%.

It wasn't Hedy fry, she's dropped out of the race. Why do you assume it was another leadership candidate? It could have been the conservatives. Or, more likely it could have been someone who is not associated with either party.

Wow, the fact that gagliano is endorsing volpe adds even more credibility to an already extremely credible candidate And of course gagliano tries to blame it on prejudice. No it's never a person's fault for being corrupt, it's all a massive conspiracy against italian-canadians Seriously Joe, drop out.

It's about time. She never had any chance.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

It's probably not that unreasonable to expect someone in the department to know where the money was going, but how would they know what they were getting back in return? How would they know that no work was ever produced for many of the contracts? Also, who is responsible for how the money is spent in the department of public works? Is the finance minister reponsible for how that money is spent, or is it the department of public works (ie gagliano's department) that would be responsible?

And these people testified that the 1.1 million the liberals recieved was specifically for the purpose of a bribe? How would they even know? It wasn't a bribe. It was a carefully created scheme to take money from the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of the party. No bribery, just robbery. Same principle as bribery, no? The liberals ask for money from the companies they are giving contracts to, and in return those companies keep getting lucrative contracts. If the money stops, presumably so do the contracts.

Rightly, or wrongly, he was still "exonerated from any blame for carlesness or misconduct." I don't know enough about the role of the finance minister to really comment, but is it the finance minister's responsibility to know where every dollar goes? That seems pretty unreaslistic given the hundreds of billions spent, no? Of course he would have known about the money going to the sponsorship program, but how would he know that the money was being abused?

And these people testified that the 1.1 million the liberals recieved was specifically for the purpose of a bribe? How would they even know? Why are you ignoring my points? Mulroney denied recieving any money Link . He then acknowledged recieving the money but says it was for business consultation. So why didn't he say that all along? Why did he instead deny any business dealings with schreiber? Why did he clearly lie?? So, he recieved the money, denied it, claims it was for business consultation (despite denying dealing with him). So what else could the money be for, if not for a bribe? Kind of like what else could the 1.1 million be for other than a bribe? Same logic. Again you fail to provide reasoned arguments against my previous comments. Since you've now had two opportunities to do so, I can only assume you have no reasoned arguments.

Like who? No, because there is no evidence that the liberals recieved $100 million in bribes. The evidence shows that they recieved 1.1 million, and yes that entire 1.1 million I would consider a bribe. You could argue against my comments using logic and reason, yet you failed to do so and resorted instead to sarcasm & insults. That usually means you've lost the argument. If you want to prove my comments wrong you are still free to do so, if you can. Otherwise, I suggest you don't comment at all.

Martin was never charged with anything, something he said many times. So to say he was exonerated is a pretty big stretch. The Sponsorship program had been wound up by the time Martiin took power. Your sad attempts at defending Martin are embarrassing. Thankfully the Canadian electorate proved themselves to be a better judge of leadership ability than you have. From the Gomery Report: Link

Proven how? Through testimony? Why do you believe their testimony but not Schreibers? I guess you only believe people when they say what you want to hear. No, that's not the logic I used at all, stop making stuff up. The logic I used is that the liberals got 1.1 million and since you don't give money for nothing, that the 1.1 million was most likely a bribe. I think that's how most people look at it. Now 300,000 was given to mulroney, and using the same logic, money isn't given for nothing, that 300,00 was most likely a bribe. I'll take this to mean that I won that argument, but that you are not willing to admit it.

Well, it wasn't for "business consultation" which is Mulroney's excuse. If it was legitimate, why was it denied? That's like saying the $1.1 million given to ad agencies had nothing to do with the contracts being handed out. Without using testimony, prove that the million dollars was a bribe. It's pretty hard to "prove", but it's just common sense. People don't usually give out money for nothing. Not really. Airbus or Mulroney could have easily made a conscious decision to lower the cost by 300 thousand. If we asssume for a minute that the payment actually was a bribe...let's say airbus bids $10 million (actual figure is irrelevant) for the contract and gives mulroney $300,000 to grease the wheels. So tax payers pay $10 million, airbus gets 9.7 million and mulroney gets .3 million. Everyone is happy (except taxpayers). Mulroney should have given airbus 9.7 million and left the .3 million in tax payers pockets. Do you think airbus cares where that .3 million ends up, so long as they still get 9.7 million? The net effect is Mulroney stole .3 million from tax payers. Now who's being arrogant?

1. Paul Martin wasn't PM at the time of Adscam. 2. Who did Gomery find responsible for the theft of $1.14 Milliion in taxpayer dollars? The quick answer is no. Gomery was fact finding and had no accused. Mulroney was actually accused and found not guilty. The Government than settled Mulroney's counter-suit out of court. 1. I know he wasn't. He was finance minister, and many people think he was guilty. But he was exonerated, so the matter should be "settled", no? 2. Chretien and Gagliano were named from the liberal party. The rest were beaurocrats. This wasn't just about Paul Martin not being implicated, but Gomery actually went out of his way to specifically exonerate Paul Martin & his government.

You accused my last post of being a "ploy" and seemed to be implying that I was trying to be sneaky. So I decided to be more transparent and forthright in my question....how is that arrogance? If you understood the purpose of my question all along then why did you accuse it of being a ploy? The liberals gave money (from taxpayers) to advertising companies, and those advertising companies gave money back to the liberal party. Therefore, the liberals indirectly stole from taxpayers. Mulroney gave money to airbus, and they gave him money in return. Therefore, mulroney indirectly stole from taxpayers. The only real difference is that since we got a "good deal" from airbus, additional money wasn't wasted. In the case of adscam, an additional $100 million was pretty much wasted. Well, I disagree with you there. For me it's more about trust. I do care about 100 million dollars being wasted, but I care much more about 1 million being stolen. I've tried to offer proof, but you haven't responded to my previous question. There are a few things which I consider to be "facts" but please feel free to argue any of them (because I'm not sure exactly where you disagree with me): 1) Mulroney accepted $300,000 on from Schreiber (on behalf of airbus) 2) There is no explanation for that $300,000 other than a bribe (if it was legitimate, there would be no need to deny it would there?) 3) Mulroney awarded contracts to airbus So there's your prooof. Which part do you take issue with? How are Canadians worse off? Well, Mulroney essentially stole $300,000 from taxpayers, that's how. No matter how good the contract may have been, we could have gotten it for $300,000 cheaper if they hadn't used that money to bribe Mulroney.

Haven't seen anybody reply to the above so I thought I would ask again. Well since you asked...would you say that the gomery inquiry "settled" the issue of adscam? You know, the same inquiry that exonerated Paul Martin & his government. I'll be curious to see if chretien wins his lawsuit. If he does, I hope you'll come to this forum and make a post about how the liberals are innocent and the issue is settled. I'm not sure how that lawsuit is going, but I'll keep you posted if I hear any news.

But we didn't get anything from them. So why ask the question? Seems like a ploy to somehow make adscam and airbus comparable when they aren't at all. It's not a ploy, it's a hypothetical question. Since you obviously don't understand why I asked it, I will be a little more transparent. What is it that bothers you more about the sponsorship program?: a) the fact that money was wasted the fact that the money was stolen Personally, I'd say . I don't care as much about the money, since money is wasted all the time in government and no-one is booted out for it (not that it's ok to waste money, just that it's better than stealing it). I care more about the principle behind stealing the money. So, I don't really care if we got a good deal from airbus, what I care about is the principle behind Mulroney taking bribes (and therefore indirectly stealing from taxpayers). That is the same reason why adscam is a concern to me more than the fact that money was wasted.

There were some actual *contracts* given out when there was no work done. The two cases aren't even comparable. The Airbus bid ended up being the better one for the Canadian taxpayers. You are missing my point, despite the fact that you highlighted it. I was asking a hypothetical question that IF we "got a good deal" from the liberal ad agencies, would it bother you that they happened to donate a million dollars to the liberals?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with regards to Mulroney it seems you are basically arguing that it's ok to give contracts to people who give you money ($300,000) so long as they still give you a good deal. Now, the only difference I see between that situation and adscam is that perhaps airbus was offering as good of a deal as boeing (though if they have 300 thousand to blow on what is probably considered a bribe, presumably they could have gotten the contract for 300 thousand cheaper than they did and hence that money came indirectly from taxpayers....but that's a different argument). So, if we pretend for a minute that those liberal friendly ad agencies did a good job, does it not bother you that they donated a million dollars to the liberals? Would you still be saying "the deal was good, what the hell is the problem?"

So, if the "liberal-friendly" ad firms had done good advertising work you wouldn't have cared that they contributed a million dollars to the liberal party? By the way, isn't chretien now suing the government for defamation? Are you saying that makes him innocent?

And evidence from Mulroney himself. First he denied recieving money, then later admitted to it. Which of the following 'facts' do you take issue with: 1) Mulroney recieved $300,000 from Schreiber 2) Mulroney previously denied having accepted the money 3) Mulroney now admits to taking the money but says it was for 'business consultation' Now, if we assume that only number 1 is true, that in itself is a huge conflict of interest. If we assume that number 2 is also true that shows even more questionable activities by mulroney. Why would he deny accepting money from Schreiber if it was for something as innocent as business consultation? Once again, divert and deflect. Nice tactics. So you aknowledge he recieved the money? Now why did he deny it in the first place? Why would Schreiber lie when he said that mulroney did not consult with him on business (except for one pamphlet)? Tell me honestly, is it not a conflict of interest in doing business with this man? Oh, so if it's something that happened 13 years ago it's not an issue? So Mulroney isn't corrupt anymore since 13 years has passed? Oh I see, in that case maybe we should think about re-electing Chretien as prime minister in 13 years. By that time, the sponsorship scandal won't be an issue, and if anyone tries to bring it up we'll just say "this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game..."

Typical response. Why should Mulroney have to be ethical just because the liberals weren't? There isn't enough evidence to prosecute the liberals either. Even those previous liberal members who were implicated in the scandal, do you think they will be prosecuted? Not likely. That doens't mean they aren't guilty. Even chretien is suing the government for defamation, similar to what Mulroney did. I wouldn't be surprised if he won. That's politics for you, steal/accept bribes and when you are accused of wrongdoing, turn around and sue the government for even more money