socialist

Ontario. Multiple billions wasted. Coverup of information. Police investigations into criminal issues like destruction of government property as evidence. THAT'S a scandal!! The Duffy case is nothing in comparison.

No one could POSSIBLY buy that there's a serious distinction between "dismissed" and "fired". Plus, you're conveniently and deceptively leaving out the part where the PM said that he regretted Wright's resignation.

Yep...it's all about context. Maybe the waldo knows her true context.

You are being deceptive, again! Harper has never, ever said he fired Wright. It is correct by saying that Harper said he dismissed Wright. Wright resigned, Harper accepted the resignation and thereby dismissed Wright.

A candidate for the heart warming and tolerant Liberals made some nasty tweets. I will have to tune in to the National tonight. http://globalnews.ca/news/2171816/go-blow-your-brains-out-calgary-liberal-candidate-apologizes-for-offensive-tweets/

Where did you get that idea? If Wright were dismissed with cause (fired), there would be a letter to this effect stating the reasons. Wright would have been able to appeal this under the Employment Standards Act. Nothing like this happened. Alternatively, Wright could have been dismissed without cause, in which case he would have received severance pay. There has been no indication this happened. If he tendered his resignation, he would not have received severance, and he was effectively dismissed when the resignation was accepted. Trying to spin this on semantics is a childish game. It won't convince anyone, and it just embarrasses you, making people less inclined to read any more of your comments.

Why do you not give us a direct quote by Harper in which he says that he fired Wright? Why are you incapable of giving us a direct quote? I will tell you why: YOU cannot find one because there is not such quote. Harper has never changed his story on who knew what or when. Harper revealed more info as he was made aware. That is not changing a story.

By the number of posts you make, I'd say you have more than just a summer off.

The only reason the story has been kept in the news is to create "smear". Sadly, for the news media, the story isn't growing legs. One would think the news media would be hounding the NDP for the $2.7 million which they diverted from parliamentary expense payments to carry on political activity. They were convicted of this crime and have not yet re-paid a nickle! Some may call that "swindle"

How much money do you spend over a $90,000 issue that is questionable in the first place. It looks like Duffy was prosecuted to satisfy the media. Harper should have let the audit run its course and let the Senate deal with it in due course instead of taking a principled stand over the expenses and trying to get Duffy to pay them back in anticipation of the audit results. This is a non-issue except that it shows Harper used some poor judgement in trying to be seen as standing up for a principle. Nigel Wright is a victim of trying to save Duffy from being perceived as abusing the rules.

I don't know if there will be a strike. If there is, it will help the federal NDP. If there is a settlement it may help the Liberals.

We all know about Wynne;s disdain for PMSH. But now she has taken a swipe at Tom Mulcair saying his promises are unaffordable, misleading, or impossible. How will Wynne;'s comments affect the polls in Ontario? Will this rally residents of Ontario around Justin Trudeau? http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/18/kathleen-wynne-mulcair_n_8004078.html

How were Trudeau's words, "The budget will balance itself," taken out of context?

They are a voice and a voice that is often heard. Many of the Quebec NDP MPs have the same ideals.

Here is an article listing senators accused of improper spending: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218 It is clear that Liberal Senators are the big spenders. TOP FOUR Rod Zimmer: $176,014 (appointed by Paul Martin) Marie Charette-Poulin: $131,434 (appointed by Jean Chretien) Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: $110,000 (appointed by Chretien) Sandra Lovelace Nicholas: $75,207 (appointed by Martin) It would have been nice for the Liberal party to step up, as the Conservative party has, to ensure this money is repaid to the taxpayers as soon as possible.

Delegates voted. The NDP consists of more than a thousand or so "delegates". So basically what you are saying between the lines is that there is no longer any difference between the Liberals and NDP.

Let's analyze this. The difference seems to be the CPC scandal is quietly repaying embarrassing expenses (not proven illegal all though they should be, hence the embarrassment, right?). VS the LPC stealing millions from Canadians to directly fund the party. Yes, I see how those things are exactly the same. How could we miss it

Irrelevant? The NDP Socialist Caucus is real. Have you heard of them? Have you looked at their website. They are a strong vice within the NDP.

If you took the time to read the 400 pages of emails you would see that dozens of pages are filler pages, the same email appears about 10 times in different threads and on average there were a few one-paragraph emails (if that) per day per person involved. This was probably one of a hundred items on the PMO's agenda, for all of a couple weeks. I do not believe this is a matter of bribery, however, I am willing to wait for the Judge's verdict on this. It does seem incomprehensible that a guilty on the bribery charge can be rendered as the alleged briber (Mr. Wright) has not been charged.

It's clear that calling this a bribe is a distortion -- but let us see what they court decides. It does not look like a bribe to me.

Garbage. It is increasingly clear that the case against Wright and the PMO is being drummed up by unscrupulous people on the left who will stop at nothing to bring down Harper. This is politics -- and we have seen it all before. I expect it will backfire on the left before election day.

It is not a crime for an individual (Nigel Wright) to use his own money to assist someone to pay a bill, which may yet turn out to be an illegitimate bill. Wright is only guilty of unprecedented generosity, which the ravenous hyenas can not fathom. If someone gives me money to pay a bill, and I pay it, I am going to say "I have paid my bill." Here is what Duffy stated, in writing. February 22, 2013 Dear Chairman, Recently questions have been raised about my eligibility for the secondary housing allowance. I filled out the Senate forms in good faith and believed I was in compliance with the rules. After reviewing all aspects of this matter, it turns out I may have been mistaken. To ensure that there can be no doubt regarding this matter it is my intent to repay the housing allowance that I have collected to date. At this time, I ask the Steering Committee to provide me forthwith with the amount that must be repaid in order to settle this matter in full. Chairman, I believe that the Senate rules and forms on housing allowances are ambiguous. I want to emphasize that it was always my intent to fully comply with the rules. Sincerely, Senator Mike Duffy

I favour a flat tax.

Why is the thread drift allowed here? What about the four planks in the OP? What are your opinions of those?