Ricki Bobbi

More credible than Schreiber? Sheila Fraser. Allan Cutler. Warren Kinsella. You are applying a different standard of evidence to the two situations. Your *evidence* for Mulroney's bribe taking isnt' credible. That's the point you have been ignoring. There is no proof that Mulroney took the $300,000 as a bribe. There is only rumour and innuendo. Just like the rumour and innuendo that surround the majority of the Sponsorship Scandal money. I used sarcasm because your *proof* against Mulroney is a joke. There is no evidence of malfeasance other than the word of Schreiber. Everything else you provided just shows that Mulroney says he got paid $300,000, which he declared in income tax. You haven't proven anything and as long as you obstinately stick to the belief that Mulroney accepted a bribe of $300,000 without proving it I'll reply sarcastically. Provide actual proof or I suggest you shove your suggestions.

Answering a question with a question again Gerry? You answer the question than I'll deal with yours.

Thankfully the Canadian electorate proved themselves to be a better judge of leadership ability than you have.

Hmm, because those were the conclusions drawn by Justice Gomery after more than 100 witnesses were interviewed and an inquiry that went on for months. Maybe some of them aren't more credible than Schreiber, but all of them? Here is why your *logic* is wrong. I *proved* the entire $100 Million of the sponsorship scandal was misappropriated by the Liberals to the extent you *proved* Mulroney was bribed. I actually meant that you were embarassing yourself with your pathetic attempt to *prove* Mulroney was bribed and your startling lack of knowledge of the government bidding progress.

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.

Where did you get it wasn't for consulting? That $1.14 Million is the only amount of money that was proven to be illegally given to Liberal friendly ad firms with no work done. That money was proven by Justice Gomery. Do I believe that much more of the sponsorship program money was illegally diverted to other parties? It's just common sense that the Liberals got a lot more than $1.14 Million out of the deal. Isn't it? That is the logic you used isn't it? Wow, with such an in-depth knowledge of Government tending and the airline busienss you must work for Boeing or Bombardier ... probably Bomardier.

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.

Take issue with 1) and 2). No proof it was on behalf of airbus. You are trying to say that unless proven otherwise the $300,000 payout has to be a bribe? wtf. You also assume that Airbus made a conscious decision to inflate their bid by $300,000 and to give that money to Mulroney. That's a huge jump in logic. So you are saying you have no evidence, but there has to be only one explanation. That is your proof?

Ok. I'll change my line. It hasn't been resolved because the CBC (a few outlets) ran a story stories about it (eight months ago)?

Haven't seen anybody reply to the above so I thought I would ask again.

You don't have the ability to express yourself succinctly and follow it up with arrogance instead of presenting your views in a comprehensible manner? Principles vary by person and there can be no absolute standard. That's why we have periodic elections and laws. The Liberals absolutely, and admittedly, stole from the taxpayers in Adscam. The only case that can be made that Canadians are better off by their actions is if you truly believe that the Liberals deserve to be in government at all times, and it was *only* $1.14 million. I care about the rule of law. The Liberals were proven to have stolen that money and admitted it. I tend to care about the actual dollars and cents. My taxes and/or the cost of tickets on Air Canada are lower because the PCs went with the Airbus offer. Why would I care about accusations that Mulroney *might* have taken a bribe? Prove he did it. If you can do that, prove how it made Canadians worse off. Then we can consider whether or not Adscam and airbus are equivalent. Until then it's just a withc hunt.

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.

You can't actually provide evidence that Harper is trying to suppress debate. Thankfully you have the ability to gauge Harper's intentions. And those intentions you can magiaclly divine happen to match with your negative view of the man in general. Very interesting.

It hasn't been resolved because the CBC ran a story about it? Hmmm, the Liberal Government settled the case out of court. The term settlement implies that the issue has been settled. But maybe that's just me...

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.

Where does that come from?

Hmmm, the only accusation is from Schreiber in the Mulroney case. Everything Mulroney did was above board. The Liberals were found by a judicial inquiry of misappropriating more than $1 Million dollars. There is a difference between Mulroney being paid for a business deal with money from a business man and the Liberals misusing government money. I take your silence on the 13 years later part of it to mean you recognize this really shouldn't be an issue this late in the game...

The tone of the CBC report was far from giving Mulroney the benefit of the doubt. Again, there wasn't enough evidence for the Liberals to proceed with prosecution or even fight a wrongful prosecution case in court. They settled for $2 Million. Mulroney has been out of office for 13 years. The Liberals have been found to illegally have diverted over $1.1 million in tapayer money, in a *judicial inquiry*. Why the focus on Mjlroney?

There has never been any evidence put forth for the Government trying to suppress debate. The OP, a notorious Harper hater, called it despicable that the PM said if you don't support the mission you don't support the troops. It's pretty easy to say you support the troops. But if you are opposed to them doing the job they have been trained to do in support of a safer world, well ... How much are you really supporting them?

Good point. The stalwarts would never vote Liberal anyways. The soft NDP supprorters are the ones who saved Martin's bacon in the 2004 election that Rae could very well appeal to.

So by asking Parliament to re-affirm our support for the troops by extending the mission he threatened the troops with the loss of our support? Not making any sense...

Yeah, I don't think fiscal performance will be affect many voting decisions this time around. What is the different tune I would be playing? Hey, I'm actually trying to be realistic here. Rae offers the Liberals their best chance to win period. All the other candidates have far more negatives and I don't think as Conservatives supporters we should take Rae too lightly.

30 seats. More than twice as many as Rae needs to swing to win back government. How many voters who are possible Liberal voters base their voting decision on fiscal performance of the Government? That is much more the domain of committed CPC voters. Rae can, and will, argue that there were global economic issues at play and he stepped into a bad situation.

You are calling that CBC hack job evidence? The only source they had is Karl Heinz Schreiber. Shcreiber alone wasn't credible enough for the Government to proceed with their lawsuit. *But* he's credible enough for you, and the CBC, to take as new evidence of Mulroney's guilt? No other media outlet thought ihe was credible enough to bring the story back. Adscam was proven by a judicial inquiry by a judge picked by the Liberal government of the day. Hmmm, seems like your standard of proof is a lot higher for Liberal malfeasance.

He only needs to pick up 14 seats from the CPC. Seven in Ontario and seven in Quebec isn't unrealistic from a man who probably won't make any big mistakes...