punked

They never got any money back eh? You want to rephrase that? They never got the money they aren't suppose to get back, back. There that sounds better. They didn't spend it at the local level come on even if they are found in no wrong doing they still should not get that million back and you know it. If the Liberals were caught doing some Ad Scaming before they got any money from it would that make it better? That is what you are saying with this arguement.

We do Conservative not get this. They get 60% of that money back from us the Tax Payer that is our money they are stealing.

Give it time

HAHAHAHA I love how you accuse them of being xenophobic as you talk of how much you hate immigrants.

CBC http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/24/...c-election.html

Calls for suspension of officials LeBlanc said that according to the affidavit, a Conservative ad firm told investigators it was possible an invoice submitted to Elections Canada by the Conservative party may have been altered or created by someone. "This raises questions of possible breaches to the Criminal Code, including forgery fraud and falsification of documents," LeBlanc said. LeBlanc also called on Harper to suspend all political officials alleged to be connected to the alleged spending scheme, including Transportation Minister Lawrence Cannon, Harper's deputy chief of staff and a senior policy adviser to government House leader Peter Van Loan. LeBlanc said these people should be singled out because they "appeared to have been involved in the design and implementation of the in-and-out scheme" and not merely participants. LeBlanc said his party is not suggesting they are guilty of any kind of criminal conduct, but that Harper should ask them to step aside during the investigation.

There is an easy way to put this all behind. Harper needs to call for a RCMP investigation and if nothing wrong was done his name will be cleared and we can move forward.

You don't find it suspicious that the conservatives forged documents? We can do this all day. Fact is a judge signed the warrant making it legal.

No it does not. You see the money is going to places where the money was not spent. I don't know about you but I would rather the money which suppose to be spent in in my riding not go to a riding in Ontario. That is just economics. Don't make the claim you spent in my riding giving the money back to the local wing where money is not spent becuase they don't think my riding is important. If they don't want to spend the money fine but they don't get to take that money away and spend it somewhere where they are not allowed to spend it. I am glade however you see how this is different from what the other parties did.

Yah the RCMP can search your house if you are embezzling money too, or if you stole something, or if you are growing pot, see a pattern all these things are illegal. They however can not search it if they have no reason to believe you have done something wrong.

Because having some evidence and not completely understanding a case is usually not the way to win it or prove guilt. Here let me explain this to you, say someone kills someone you don't know who that person is but you find my fingerprints at the victims house you would usually get a search warrant for my house cause you might you know find the murder weapon or bloody cloths there. The point you are making is there is no point in searching my house becuase you got the fingerprint this is silly.

No you see you can not get a warrant with out evidence I think the lawyer in you died a little there.

You forgot the part where elections Canada went and got a search warrant with evidance that Conservatives broke the law.

That is not what the Conservatives did they pulled the money out of the campaigns account after putting it into their account to spend where limits were already reached or to spend it nationally where the cap was reached too. That is the difference, it is different. They did it to break the law while the other parties did it to help campaigns who could did not reach limits. You see a limit is a place where you are suppose to stop spending so spending over it is against the law.

Nope did you read the Conservative documents? It is clear what the Conservatives are saying isn't true. They say the NDP ad Liberals putting money into places where legal limits haven't been reached is the same as putting money in, then taking it back out in order to spend it in another place where limits were reached. Does that sound like the samething? No it is however as the Conservatives say sorta kinda like the samething. That is why the Conservatives are the only coming under the gun

That is why the Affidavit they submitted is not very good proof they never say other parties did what they did and they never accuse them of anything other then things that were sorta kinda like what they did. It is a bunch of double speak.

Nope they are fighting so things "sort of kinda like" what they did count as the same as what they did. Too bad these other parties didn't break the law doing the things that were sorta like what the conservatives did but with out the illegal differences.

Yes it has to do with the law suit the Conservatives brought against elections Canada cause the lawsuit is about this issue. The law suit says EC is wrong in not giving the Conservatives money back, and EC says they broke the law they are one in the same about the same issue not two different issues. Qwerty have you read anything about this subject? You can not get a search warrant for "I want to punish them for filing a law suit" you have to have some sort of proof. BWT

My point stands even if you want to ignore it and redirect.

I assume what they wrote int the Affidavit is not a lie because it is a sworn statement. Which is when I read it I find they never say anyone did what they did but things which are similar. Here lets us an example I ask my friend if I can take his car out and then I do, or I just take his car out with out asking. They are similar things which I did but on is stealing and illegal that what them saying the other parties did similar things is not a charge I am willing to by from the Tories.

Because it is an Affidavit, it is not something coming from the court it is something coming from the Conservative party. Read the web page you do not even have to read the document you have to read the first sentence before the "Donald Affidavit" to know it comes from the Conservatives not the courts.

What are you talking about the document he referred too is not a court document it is a document from the Conservative party which doesn't even accuse the other parties of the same practice. You are the one not even listening to your own party. There are also a lot of Conservative party member who were left out in the wind who felt wronged too.

"Back in November of last year, the Conservative Party filed an affidavit (the "Donald Affidavit") with the federal court." That seems like the holy grail of impartial documents. They did this so they could keep accusing other parties and spinning but when you read the document which I am sure you haven't done it is full of accusations of things that "kinda, somewhat like, but not really the same but maybe close though" things the other parties did. I personally don't think it is wrong to help your candidates reach their spending limits like this document assesses, but giving money to a candidate then pulling it out to throw that candidate to the wolves so you can spend more then the legal limit on another candidate seems wrong to me. Either way you would agree they are not the same thing?

Yes I did it is full of spin. They do not accuse the other parties of what they have done they say things like "similar" and so fourth so they could later use this to show they are being signalled out. The accusations of other parties doing an "in and out schemes" is just an in scheme that is they charge other parties of diverting funds to people who have not reached their limit to spend till their limit. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE TORIES DID. They gave money to people who didn't reach their cap only to pull that money out and use it else where, where the limit was reached and said it had been spent in the ridings it was not spent. Maybe you should read the document carefully you will see they accuse no other party of what they have done they accuse them of doing things "kinda maybe like it sorta." SPIN

The problem here is the other parties don't do this. That is the Conservatives are in hott water, and trying to spin this.