socialist

I guess no one is forced to get married...are they?

Trump is not sacrosanct and it is too early to start ruling folks out. There is no sense in which Carly dissing Trump is different (in terms of interest to the conservative base) than Trump dissing Carly, which he does regularly. It is simply early-primary jostling among competitors, and the more of it now, the better. I don't care about any of that -- I want to hear about their policy positions and I want to see evidence their actions will match their words.

Your not a fan of the institution of marriage? Why not?

You do a fair bit of demonizing toward those who disagree with your socialist progressive views. But you're full of your own style of self-righteousness. One of the reasons I changed from my socialist progressive views was because of hypocrites like you. Your own side is as hateful and intolerant of the other side, as much as you claim the other side is intolerant of your favourite flavour of the month.

ONE action can only be explained in ONE way, and that is the UN-ethical action of claiming expenses which are NOT incurred, regardless of outdated and vague senate rules. The fact that Duffy had claimed expenses NOT incurred is obvious.It has been obvious to many as far back as this so-called scandal came into being. PM Harper has always said that claiming expenses NOT incurred is wrong! Therefore he felt that regardless of vague and outdated rules, those false expenses had to be repaid by Duffy. Period. Harper instructed Wright, as his CoS, to deal with the issue,which Wright tried to do. Duffy still believed he could claim those unincurred expenses, and wavered back and forth. Wright and members of the PMO and the senate tried to rectify all of this with those vague and outdated senate rules hanging forever in the back ground (or, to be more exact: outdated and vague senate rules hanging around their necks!). The only answer then and now which could be given with any clarity was the answer that expenses claimed but not incurred are not ethically warranted. Had PM Harper NOT insisted that Duffy pay back his expenses NOT incurred, then the press and Canadians would have been upset with Harper for not having taken the right course of action. So voters have a decision to make. Not anyone in life can have it both ways. Not the PM and not Duffy and not the lawyer defending Duffy and certainly not the media, who more often than not pretendsTHEY can have it both ways. If voters believe expenses not incurred should not be claimed, then Harper comes out winning. But if most Canadians suddenly believe that expenses NOT incurred SHOULD have been claimed, well, then Mulcair and the NDP and their Parliamentary money used for partisan regional offices will become PM, ethics be damned!!

Social Con? No? But you singling out one individual for the purpose of ridicule is low and intolerant. I would say the person you ridiculed, whom I've never heard of, has some serious problems. It's sad that you revel in someone else's misery. It says much about your own self righteous insecurities.

Pretty low of you, Kimmy. Actually, it's disgusting....him and you.

I guess we'll say. August 19th and you know exactly what will happen Oct.19. Is your crystal ball union made.

Again, that's a deceptive statement. Every decade has unique circumstances that may challenge or reward a government. It's like saying Dennis Maruk was a better hockey player than Sid Crosby because Maruk scored 136 pts in one year and Crosby has never eclipsed 120. Like I said, different times, different circumstances....but you would rather deceive. Then you send a link by UNIFOR.....

Should Mulcair get voted in, yes, Canada loses – we are going to have to so much red tape and regulations shoved down our throats that we will almost be nullified from doing anything with a positive business idea! It will be Nanny State with no economy, business or freedom!

This is too funny. Dozens of Manitoba government, City of Winnipeg emails part of Ashley Madison data dump.Honestly, why would you use your government email to register on a site like this. Government employees should be working, not searching the internet for affairs. Another example of taxpayers dollars hard at work. http://globalnews.ca/news/2174780/dozens-of-manitoba-government-city-of-winnipeg-emails-part-of-ashley-madison-data-dump/

Andrew Coyne is spending a lot of time weighing i on the Duffy trial. What a bunch of chutzpah Mr.Coyne is bringing us! As if Andrew Coyne not knows that sometimes events get out of hand. If Andrew Coyne would have been in the PMO office, as a subordinate of Wright, would Coyne have gone public? I doubt it. Coyne, who has sat on the CBC panel for years now, has never, ever objected to the fabricated story aired on CBC on June 6 and 7, 2013, in which Greg Weston claimed that the CPC had a 'secret fund' in the PMO. There never ever was such a secret fund, ever, and the CPC party executive asked the CBC to retract that completely baseless report. But no, the CBC piled it on even more, directly trying to influence an ongoing breaking story about the Duffy/Wright affair. Mr.Coyne knows full well that ALL political parties have a party fund out of which particular expenses are reimbursed to caucus members (and yes, Duffy was then still a member of the CPC caucus!), and Coyne also knows full well that such party funds existing are NOT secret. And yet, Coyne never bothered to mention the fact that the CBC was willfully misleading Canadians. Coyne never once stood up in an ethical manner to say to his boss panelist, Peter Mansbridge: "Hey, Peter, I think you are using tax dollars to mislead Canadians." Why does Coyne accuse people working in the PMO of not standing up to Wright and not telling Harper of what was really going on, if Coyne himself never had the courage or the ethics in hand to tell Peter Mansbridge and the CBC about fabricated reporting? What was Coyne thinking when the Greg Weston's story broke? What was Coyne really thinking? Mr.Coyne, when will you, or other members of the media, ask how much the Liberal party has paid for Mac Harb's legal advice when that Liberal senator was being audited? Why only ask the Conservative party how much they had paid for Duffy's legal expenses in regards to the audit? Coyne gets paid by the CBC for sitting on the At Issue panel. In fact, now that the Duffy trial is in full swing, Mr.Coyne is reaping financial benefits to boot! He now appears on CBC almost three times a week instead of the usual one time per week. So keeping the Duffy trial front and center at the CBC means that Andrew Coyne gets about $1,000 a week more paid for by the tax payer than he did when the Duffy trial was not in vogue. It's a fact. A cold hard fact.

1. Duffy wavered back and forth at all times (as the court proceedings make clear enough).Duffy still thought he was entitled to his expenses which he had NOT incurred. Wright wanted to save face for Duffy as much as Wright wanted to safe face for the government. One of Duffy's plights was that he did not have the money. And Wright is a very rich man who did not want his name associated with that payment. That is why Wright paid the tax payer back via Duffy. 2.You are looking at things in hindsight. Once the decision was made to pay for Duffy (first by the party, which is done by all parties under some circumstances!, and then ultimately by Wright himself) the train was set in motion. Once a train is set in motion, and standing in front of a yet to be unknown future, the process unfolded as it did. YOU are looking back over what has happened, knowing in advance what would come next. Wright did not have that advantage and neither did anyone else. 3.Wright never interpreted it that way (that Parliament was mislead). Wright's opinion (and yes, he has the right to his opinion) was that since the rules of the senate were outdated and vague, no one knew then or knows now how much of Duffy's actions were actually illegitimate. But Wright agreed with Harper that expenses not incurred should not be claimed. But because of the vague senate rules, Wright thought that if the expenses were paid back for Duffy, then Duffy's expenses were paid back to the tax payer and according to Wright, it was not a bad misrepresentation. I agree. Because the rules were and are vague, if the party or Wright paid back the expenses, it did not make much difference. Now I have some questions for you VK. Why does Peter Mansbridge (and other members of the media) say that Harper said he fired Wright, if there is no such direct quote from Harper to be found? Why did the CBC on June 6 and 7, 2013, feel the need to air a fabricated report on there being a 'secret' CPC party 'fund' in the PMO, if that was immediately objected to by the CPC party and the party had requested such false report to be retracted. ? Why have the members of the media, including the CBC and Peter Mansbridge, never, ever asked Justin Trudeau how much the Liberal party has paid for Mac Harb's legal advice when HE was being audited as a Liberal senator? Why are members of the media so selective in their fact finding??? I have answered your questions. I wonder if you will answer mine.

I really don't pay close attention to polls. I wonder if Adrian Dix still does?

Well, all you do is repeat the CBC's talking points on fake scandals. I have no interest in trying to "pin" you down to a party. Running with the faux scandals of the CBC says much about you, and that;'s quite pathetic. HAHAHAHA

But you have no problem parroting the faux scandals of the agenda driven CBC. All I can do is shake my head at how easily you are manipulated by the CBC and their ilk.

Argus, how do you think the NDP will pay for nationalized $15/day daycare?

This is another media endeavor to create doubt in the voter's minds. The ' Afghan detainee' hoax and 'robocall' were two other of many of their projects. It doesn't matter if there is any substance, there is a pot of taxpayer gold at the end of the rainbow and the Conservatives stand in their way.

One thing for sure, you can tell who watches Mother Corpse and CTV, when they parrot the nonsense spewed there. My take, I hope DUffy gets screwed. Period. He is the one who messed up. He's just trying the old tactic of trying too drag down as many others as he can, by not accepting, gracefully, his responsibility. POS media type, they ALL are in the same bucket, lower than a snakes belly. When it's so hard to find it's very possibly because there is no scandal beyond the minds of the elected opposition and their friends in the media consortium out to get Harper. This is their election issue,things that affect the lives of Canadians, like the economy and safety issues, are not something they can win on against Harper, this is all they've got. They hate Harper more than they care about the country. The reason you can't see a scandal is because there isn't one - but that is irrelevant to the concerted media narrative or propaganda ploy - innuendo is as good as reality these days, it is irrelevant if you are innocent, guilt by innuendo or association is enough. It's a page right out of the Stalinist era KGB play book for propaganda technique. If you say our coal seems like diamond enough in the media coal becomes diamond in the collective public's mind's eye. Conversely if you repeatedly say their diamonds look like coal - their diamonds are coal in the collective psyche. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

Do the socialists feed their talking points or do you have to dig them out of their website yourself? Meanwhile, Harb is just chillin' and enjoying life after deliberately planning the heist and stealing money from the taxpayer. Ala quietly goes away after saying probably the most horrific things a Canadian politician has ever uttered. Tom quietly refuses to repay 2.7 million he stole from the taxpayer. But across the headlines from coast to coast, Duffy accepted a private loan/gift/money from someone in the Conservative party to repay expenses. The consortium is doing payback. The media unions are obliging, and the left is tossing fuel on the wet paper hoping it will give the voter enough reason to overlook their commonsense and vote for them.

Is it not Duffy's Lawyer job to present deception of fact with inferences of inappropriate actions simply to cast the potential of innocence through burden of proof? The PMO and or Wright were never charged by the RCMP as no crime was committed. Those are the facts. It is Duffy who committed fraud and bribery and is on trail here. It is irrelevant if Novak was aware of the payment. Novak in fact still reported to Wright at the time, are we to assume he did a run around on Wright and informed the PM directly? Once again the payment was never in question as a crime. The PM has been true to his statement and the RCMP ITO's support those facts. Lets remember the only reason the E-mails are in court is because Harper waved Parliamentary privilege, called the audit and the RCMP investigation. Maybe the question should be to Mr. Trudeau from the press. Mr. Trudeau is it in your best judgement to be campaigning with a Premier of a Liberal Government under 3 criminal investigations?

Interesting comparison, but this Duffy/Wright scandal is really all about outdated and vague senate rules, rules which could be used on both sides for justifying actions. However,ONE action can only be explained in ONE way, and that is the UN-ethical action of claiming expenses which are NOT incurred, regardless of outdated and vague senate rules. The fact that Duffy had claimed expenses NOT incurred is obvious. It has been obvious to many as far back as this so-called scandal came into being. PM Harper has always said that claiming expenses NOT incurred is wrong! Therefore he felt that regardless of vague and outdated rules, those false expenses had to be repaid by Duffy. Period. Harper instructed Wright, as his CoS, to deal with the issue, which Wright tried to do. Duffy still believed he could claim those unincurred expenses, and wavered back and forth. Wright and members of the PMO and the senate tried to rectify all of this with those vague and outdated senate rules hanging forever in the back ground. The only answer then and now which could be given with any clarity was the answer that expenses claimed but not incurred are not ethically warranted. Had PM Harper NOT insisted that Duffy pay back his expenses NOT incurred, then the press and Canadians would have been upset with Harper for not having taken the right course of action. So voters have a decision to make. Not anyone in life can have it both ways. Not the PM and not Duffy and not the lawyer defending Duffy and certainly not the media, who more often than not pretends THEY can have it both ways. If voters believe expenses not incurred should not be claimed, then Harper comes out winning. But if most Canadians suddenly believe that expenses NOT incurred SHOULD have been claimed, well, then Mulcair and the NDP and their Parliamentary money used for partisan regional offices will become PM, ethics be damned!!

So where are we. The left accused the RCMP of not digging enough They've accused the prosecution of not being aggressive enough They accuse the entire government of hiding real evidence They accuse supporters of obfuscating any real facts They will accuse the judge of corruption when he finds no crime What sort of world, do you think you'll get if they ever acquire power? The left is about the end of democracy, and the return to ever widening class divisions. You won't want to cross them for fear of being in their cross hairs.

A thief is a thief regardless of station in life, political persuasion or any other reason. That said, this entire Duffy thing has been so overblown by the media and opposition parties it's pathetic. A. Initially, the CPC thought Duffy had stolen 30 G's from taxpayers and were allegedly willing to pay that back on his behalf. If that had been done, you can bet that Duffy's hands would have been severely rapped by top brass in the CPC, and his expenses submitted thereafter been carefully screened by same. B. The CPC discovered that Duffy had in fact stolen 90 G's from taxpayers and it was at that point the CPC said no way, get rid of that thief. We are not willing to pay that amount of money on his behalf. C. Enter Nigel Wright who, for whatever ill found reason, decided to use his own money to pay that 90 G's back on Duffy's behalf (why is beyond me). It was at that point the brakes were put on, Duffy was thrown out of the Conservative caucus (as should have happened in the first instance, but I'm not known for giving many the benefit of the doubt). NONE of the money allegedly meant to pay back Duffy's stolen money was taxpayer money. If it had of been, the media and the opposition parties would have been correct in screaming blue murder. Instead, the media and the opposition parties have done everything in their power to con the Canadian voters into believing that something nefarious was being done with their money by the CPC. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am so utterly disgusted by the media, the opposition parties and Duffy's crooked, lying defence lawyer. All of them should go straight to hell for the circus they've created over what amounts to nothing.