RCMP raids Tory party headquarters

[White Doors]

Harris who?

Jim Harris? The former leader of the Green party?

Hello?

[jdobbin]

Mmm, no you are mistaking my contempt for you and the corruption and dishonesty which are the bedrock of your party for anger.

Contempt sure sounds a lot like anger when it is personalized into direct attacks on posters. It certainly shows contempt for the rules the board has on being polite and attacking the issue rather than the person.

Tell me, has there been a single Liberal MP over the past ten years who wasn't a venal, self-serving weasel?

Well, perhaps that's being unfair. No doubt a few backbenchers had some ideals their first terms. But has there been a single Liberal MP of any note who could in any sense of the word be described as "honest"? I can't remember one.

Since all politicians are generally called dishonest, I'd bet you'd find that attitude held for any of the political parties. I see that cynicism reflected towards many professions such as the police, doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc.

Generalization is what the many Tories have been doing for a while now. They basically have said that any person who is a Liberal, supports the Liberals or who doesn't support the Tories are of bad character. Harper tried this with his "your either for us or supporting the Taliban" speech. That didn't go over so well even with his own supporters who had deep concerns about Afghanistan. The conquer and divide attitude tends to alienate the electorate.

Oh I assure you I don't hide my political beliefs in person. I enjoy very good relationships with a number of foolish people who are erstwhile Liberal supporters. They mock conservatives regularly - but then, they can only sigh and shake their heads about the Liberal party, its corruption and its pathetic excuse for leadership. Not a one of them can think of a single Liberal MP of note they'd like to see as leader - except that they'd like to see almost anyone else except Stephan Dion as leader.

I'm sure you don't call them names and say they are Taliban supporters when you do engage them. It would be civil to try to extend that type of behaviour to this forum as well.

I was not involved in the leadership race at all for the very reason that no one particularly inspired me and that I couldn't afford the time and cost to delve in. I would have liked to see John Manley or Frank McKenna run personally but for whatever reasons both decided to opt out.

But you see, I don't mind them mocking conservatives. It's just politics, after all. You're different. I get the strong impression, from the avalanche of postings you've made over the past year, of someone on a campaign, a campaign of sleaze and innuendo, of a dedicated effort to smear the Tories with every variety and brand of accusation and twisted interpretation of news he can find. You say you are not a member of the party any more. If that's the case I would suspect it's so you can claim to not be with the party because it wouldn't look good if the media found out party workers had been instructed to make such a dedicated effort on sites like this smearing the Tories. I don't believe you are posting here as an individual at all. I think you're working for the Liberal Party. You post too often, and your postings are, for the most part, far too - bloodless - for want of a better term.

It is easy enough to find out. I'm certainly not anonymous here. I hear this accusation all the time and I defy anyone to make that link. It is just another smear by the right wing to draw blood anonymously. Comments such as those certainly don't hold much too much water with me when the person hides behind a screenname. I suspect it is a reason why some feel they can comment as they do.

Personal attacks seems to be part of the Tory agenda. If that is the case, I suppose the best way to do it is to remain anonymous and then you can make any smear at all and hope it doesn't get you suspended.

You twist like a weasel. You said they had altered the documents. Another poster picked up on that and said they had forged documents. This is how you operate.

Stop running from your accusation. You said "falsified" which I never said anything of the sort. I never said anything about forging documents either. I said the Tories altered the documents which is what Retail Council said in a sworn statement. The only weaseling out is the accusation that I said something that I didn't. The documents were altered. Some Tories are trying to explain why the invoices read the same but that only seems to be after the raid took place. It was certainly enough for a search warrant when combined with several candidates who didn't cooperate with the Commissioner according to the affidavit.

In fact, one person "speculated" that an invoice didn't look like the kind they used. It's not like it was an official statement by their president.

Another open smear with little basis in fact.

It was sworn statement by the person responsible for the invoices. They said it looked altered when asked by Elections Canada. That isn't a smear, I'm afraid. That is simply what they stated. It certainly helped form the basis of the search warrant.

Oh please. It's not like parliamentary committees have ANY interest in truth. They were digging for muck, that's all.

Parliament is set up as a partisan institution. Harper may not like it now that he is government but it probably would have been better to resolve the issue there than leave it to a raid by Elections Canada.

Your memory is pretty threadbare, much like your former leader, who couldn't recall so many things in his testimony before the Gomery Commision.

No one in real life would ever act like you. If they did, no one would ever talk to them anyway, so the problem wouldn't arise.

Sounds like getting an ass kicking has been part of regular life then. I'm sorry about that.

Edited April 28, 2008 by jdobbin

[madmax]

You can't recall Argus responding to anyone without personalizing it? Yeah, well you also couldn't recall yourself saying that the Tories altered invoices, which I showed you did.

Been following this a bit, and IIRC Jdobbin stated Altered, but was accused of using the word falsified, which I cannot find that he used those word. What you are suggesting, is that Dobbin used the words he said he used, not the ones he was attributed to saying.

But really, I think with each posting people have to wonder, how, how on earth could this thread go on for such a length, if it didn't tickle the nerve of some conservative supporters.

This scheme will play itself out, and it will be determined if they were in violation. If so, SUCK IT UP.

If not, DO IT AGAIN next time.

But really, listen to the public and they are being put to sleep on this....

Here are typical thoughts at the coffee machine.....

[sharkman]

Ah, there's that personal touch that we have come to expect of you.

Did I say that? I said altered invoices justified an investigation. That, and candidates and agents refusing to cooperate with the Commissioner, led to the raid. The promise of being transparent seems hard to reconcile when it appears people refused to answer questions. And the questions that were answered led to even more questions such as that on the invoices.

And you have never really placed much importance on being civil.

Madmax, this is post 586. It was the one I originally took issue with on Dobbin. If you go back to it, you will see he edited it a few hours later to mean something else.

But the point is, Dobbin's been making all kinds of broad based accusations here based on nothing more than his bias, when at the same time he can't find it even slightly irregular that the EC had to go to a different district to get a judge to sign the warrant.

Edited April 28, 2008 by sharkman

[Shakeyhands]

But the point is, Dobbin's been making all kinds of broad based accusations here based on nothing more than his bias, when at the same time he can't find it even slightly irregular that the EC had to go to a different district to get a judge to sign the warrant.

Interesting point, much like trying to implicate Chretien and Martin or any other Liberal MP in Adscam. Why don't you call your local media outlet and ask them the question about the Judge, send an open letter to a few papers etc... I'm interested to know why as well.

[jdobbin]

Interesting point, much like trying to implicate Chretien and Martin or any other Liberal MP in Adscam. Why don't you call your local media outlet and ask them the question about the Judge, send an open letter to a few papers etc... I'm interested to know why as well.

What I find curious is why official Tory circles are not making an issue of the judge. Perhaps they have a better understanding of this than their right wing supporters.

Someone told me that the poster I had on ignore wonders what edit I made on a post. I initially wrote this:

Did I say that? I said *it* justified an investigation.

When I read it again later, I thought I'd clarify that I never said "falsified" and that "it" referred to the altered documents which I freely admit I said. I was simply stating what Elections Canada reported from a sworn statement. I made no other changes to that post. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Prior to that, you'll note I never said falsified. Ever. It is why I asked with some incredulity: "Did I say that?"

Edited April 28, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Been following this a bit, and IIRC Jdobbin stated Altered, but was accused of using the word falsified, which I cannot find that he used those word. What you are suggesting, is that Dobbin used the words he said he used, not the ones he was attributed to saying.

Elections Canada are the ones to decide whether the documents are falsified. At the moment, the only thing we know is that Retail Council said in the affidavit that they believe the invoices were altered. I've never used forgery or falsified anywhere in this thread.

But really, I think with each posting people have to wonder, how, how on earth could this thread go on for such a length, if it didn't tickle the nerve of some conservative supporters.

Some of the right wing do seem mightily upset about this whole issue. They smear Elections Canada, the RCMP, the Liberals, the CBC, the judiciary and posters here on what happened and wonder out loud about how all are out to get them.

Edited April 28, 2008 by jdobbin

[sharkman]

Someone told me that the poster I had on ignore wonders what edit I made on a post. I initially wrote this:

When I read it again later, I thought I'd clarify that I never said "falsified" and that "it" referred to the altered documents which I freely admit I said. I was simply stating what Elections Canada reported from a sworn statement. I made no other changes to that post. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

So what's the deal, do you have others doing your dirty work for you and reporting comments? Seems kind of paranoid, but different strokes I guess.

After I edit a comment, there is no way to go back days later to read what it used to say. So you are proposing that you committed to memory just by coincidence this exact post that you are now claiming to remember the former contents of. Which is about for you 30 posts, two days, and occasional edits ago. Right.

My point, which you can't squirm out of, is that your huge bias, as a recovering former Liberal, makes you an unreliable source of information on matters political. You can't even find it slightly unusual that the EC went out of their district in Ottowa to get a warrant signed.

I would add that you seem pretty obsessed by this incident, if number of posts on an issue is any indicator. Like I told you before, you might as well sign up to the Liberal party again, you're giving it for free.

[guyser]

My point, which you can't squirm out of, is that your huge bias, as a recovering former Liberal, makes you an unreliable source of information on matters political. You can't even find it slightly unusual that the EC went out of their district in Ottowa to get a warrant signed.

Can you point any of us to a newspaper article, or anything, that shows the CPC is questioning this?

Or is this the first time in history that warrants get moved away from a hotbed ?

I would add that you seem pretty obsessed by this incident, if number of posts on an issue is any indicator. Like I told you before, you might as well sign up to the Liberal party again, you're giving it for free.

Hello pot.

How much were your dues at CPC?

[sharkman]

Can you point any of us to a newspaper article, or anything, that shows the CPC is questioning this?

Or is this the first time in history that warrants get moved away from a hotbed ?

Hello pot.

How much were your dues at CPC?

Count my posts on this thread, then count Dobbins. My average on this board is about 3 posts a day. Maybe you should do a little research before you make accusations so you know what you're talking about.

[jdobbin]

Can you point any of us to a newspaper article, or anything, that shows the CPC is questioning this?

I certainly haven't seen any aside from posters here.

This whole issue seems to have ruffled the right wing it seems. Yeesh.

They can't seem to do anything without personalizing though. I can't imagine that is how they go about things in public without it resulting in an asskicking.

Edited April 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[guyser]

Count my posts on this thread, then count Dobbins. My average on this board is about 3 posts a day. Maybe you should do a little research before you make accusations so you know what you're talking about.

Funny I never said you posted as many as dobbin.

As for accusations....my my, I suppose since no party hack nor newspaper has said it is wierd for a judge in TO to sign the warrant instead of Ottawa you are above accusations ?

I thought not too. Carry on with the ad hominems.

[jdobbin]

Funny I never said you posted as many as dobbin.

Maybe you'll be accused of actually meaning that.

[sharkman]

Funny I never said you posted as many as dobbin.

As for accusations....my my, I suppose since no party hack nor newspaper has said it is wierd for a judge in TO to sign the warrant instead of Ottawa you are above accusations ?

Of course you never said that, but my point still stands. Newspapers have mentioned it as well as web sites, but who's counting.

So are you Dobbins lap dog, or does he trade them around? Speaking of which, I'm a little concerned about him. He's been using the word 'ass' recently and I hope he hasn't developed a new obsession on top of the topic of this thread. Maybe you should talk to him the next time it's your turn.

[Shakeyhands]

So what's the deal, do you have others doing your dirty work for you and reporting comments? Seems kind of paranoid, but different strokes I guess.

Did I miss something?

[jdobbin]

Did I miss something?

Just more personal attacks, it seems. And no citations for any newspapers or official Tories who have concerns regarding the judge.

As for the invoices thing, here is the official Tory reaction.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al_gam_mostview

The allegations stem from an affidavit and search warrants made public last week that were used to justify a recent search on Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa. In one case, an invoice on the letterhead of Retail Media, the Toronto-based firm that made the ad buys for the national party, was filed on behalf of an Ontario candidate.

When executives with the ad firm were shown the invoice, one said it must have been “altered or created by someone,” the affidavit states.

Mr. Poilievre dismissed the allegations, saying the documents in question “are merely bundled invoices which were separated and sent out to the ridings who were asked to pay for them.

I guess bungled is better than altered.

It would appear other Tory candidates received rebates.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...ebates/&c=2

Eleven Conservative MPs who participated in the "in and out" regional media buy during the last election received full rebates from Elections Canada before the watchdog agency red-flagged the process, put a halt to the rebates, and decided it should inquire further into candidates' advertising expenses. One opposition MP now says those rebates should be returned.

In an affidavit filed with the Federal Court as part of the Conservative Party's civil suit against Elections Canada, Janice Vézina, associate deputy chief electoral officer of political financing and chief financial officer at Elections Canada, stated that rebates were given to 17 candidates because no red flags were raised after audits and reviews were done.

Conservative MPs Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles, Que.), Steven Blaney (Lévis-Bellechasse, Que.), Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière-Chutes de la Chaudière, Que.), Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, Que.), Pat Davidson (Sarnia-Lambton, Ont.), David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Sask.), Colin Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap, B.C.), Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier (Beauce, Que.), Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner (Louis-Saint Laurent, Que.), Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon (Pontiac, Que.), and Chief Government Whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, B.C.) were the MPs who received rebates, while six other candidates who did not win seats also received full rebates for their election expenses from Elections Canada. The MPs were reimbursed a total of $421,731.88 for their election expenses.

Edited April 29, 2008 by jdobbin

[Shakeyhands]

Do we know which ridings participated and which didnt? I believe my MP is visiting my neighborhood and I would love to ask him about it.

[Argus]

Can you point any of us to a newspaper article, or anything, that shows the CPC is questioning this?

It would be very difficult for the CPC to openly question this, because to do so is to imply the judge was biased and dishonest in granting the warrant. Most Canadians don't realize the degree of political activism among judges, or that the way you get to be a judge is not through experience or qualifications but through sucking up to a particular political party. So they still figure judges to be neutral, unbiased arbitrators of law. It's silly, I know, but most Canadians aren't very knowledgeable about how this country works. Even after Paul Martin appointed two fairly inexperienced judges to be on the Supreme Court principally because they were big supportors of gay rights, most people haven't caught on.

[BubberMiley]

It would be very difficult for the CPC to openly question this, because to do so is to imply the judge was biased and dishonest in granting the warrant.

They must resort using anonymous stooges to question the justice system, because they think that Canadians are stupid?

[Argus]

Contempt sure sounds a lot like anger when it is personalized into direct attacks on posters. It certainly shows contempt for the rules the board has on being polite and attacking the issue rather than the person.

Self righteous whining really is your stock in trade, isn't it.

Since all politicians are generally called dishonest, I'd bet you'd find that attitude held for any of the political parties. I see that cynicism reflected towards many professions such as the police, doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc.

Nonsense. No one calls police, doctors, nurses or lawyers dishonest. Lawyers are weasels, and in it for the money, but nobody calls them dishonest. And the other parties are filled with people who believe in things. The NDP has all sorts of lefties with pink eyed views of the world who want to make it better. The BQ is filled with nationalists who want Quebec to be the greatest nation on earth. And the Tories are filled with conservatives who want to make the country work better, keep the government from intruding in people's lives, and keep taxes low. As fo the Liberals - it's got no particular ideological bent, and no particular policies which attract candidates. All it's got is a venal and ruthless desire for power at all costs. That's why it attracts the kind of ammoral candidates it does.

Generalization is what the many Tories have been doing for a while now. They basically have said that any person who is a Liberal, supports the Liberals or who doesn't support the Tories are of bad character.

Or dumb.

Harper tried this with his "your either for us or supporting the Taliban" speech. That didn't go over so well even with his own supporters who had deep concerns about Afghanistan.

I think the concern was for the fact the Liberals and NDP never bothered to ask questions about the welfare of Canadian troops. But when there was an implication that the Taliban were possibly being mistreated they basically went ape-shit in parliament, screaming and howling and pulling their hair out and throwing themselves on the floor crying and clawing at the rug with their fingers.

The conquer and divide attitude tends to alienate the electorate.

Nonsense. Divide and conquer has been Liberal policy for decades. That's why you cultivate (with taxpayers money) so many ethnic "representatives", why you funnel so much money into Quebec, why you say one thing out west and another out east.

I was not involved in the leadership race at all for the very reason that no one particularly inspired me and that I couldn't afford the time and cost to delve in. I would have liked to see John Manley or Frank McKenna run personally but for whatever reasons both decided to opt out.

It is easy enough to find out. I'm certainly not anonymous here. I hear this accusation all the time and I defy anyone to make that link.

It isn't merely the enormous volume of postings you spew out every day. It's the consistency of your topics. Anyone obsessed enough with politics to be putting out that volume of postings, and so utterly dedicated to the advancement of one party, would not, I think, post in such a bland style with such complete consistency. Your only topic is alleged things the Tories are doing wrong.

Stop running from your accusation. You said "falsified" which I never said anything of the sort. I never said anything about forging documents either. I said the Tories altered the documents

LOL

[jdobbin]

Self righteous whining really is your stock in trade, isn't it.

And personal attacks are yours.

Nonsense. No one calls police, doctors, nurses or lawyers dishonest. Lawyers are weasels, and in it for the money, but nobody calls them dishonest. And the other parties are filled with people who believe in things. The NDP has all sorts of lefties with pink eyed views of the world who want to make it better. The BQ is filled with nationalists who want Quebec to be the greatest nation on earth. And the Tories are filled with conservatives who want to make the country work better, keep the government from intruding in people's lives, and keep taxes low. As fo the Liberals - it's got no particular ideological bent, and no particular policies which attract candidates. All it's got is a venal and ruthless desire for power at all costs. That's why it attracts the kind of ammoral candidates it does.

No, they often call police, doctors and other professions other things. It is is all part of generalizing.

The Conservatives in your world not wanting to interfere in people's lives? C'mon. Talk about partisan worship.

I think the concern was for the fact the Liberals and NDP never bothered to ask questions about the welfare of Canadian troops. But when there was an implication that the Taliban were possibly being mistreated they basically went ape-shit in parliament, screaming and howling and pulling their hair out and throwing themselves on the floor crying and clawing at the rug with their fingers.

What tripe. The mere questioning of whether Canada would get any support in southern Afghanistan was met with this "you're either for us or against us" and "you must be Taliban" if you raise the topic of Afghanistan. We saw what the responses of the right wing here on torture was: a willful blindness to it even if it endangered stability and security.

Nonsense. Divide and conquer has been Liberal policy for decades. That's why you cultivate (with taxpayers money) so many ethnic "representatives", why you funnel so much money into Quebec, why you say one thing out west and another out east.

Funny, Harper funnels a great deal of money into Quebec by re-opening a military school the Liberals close and funding numerous projects into that province. He is cultivating ethnic representatives such as Khan and others and he tells Quebec that with a majority, he will re-open the constitution while telling the rest of Canada that he he won't.

It isn't merely the enormous volume of postings you spew out every day. It's the consistency of your topics. Anyone obsessed enough with politics to be putting out that volume of postings, and so utterly dedicated to the advancement of one party, would not, I think, post in such a bland style with such complete consistency. Your only topic is alleged things the Tories are doing wrong.

And you can't resist the urge to reply.

[madmax]

Greg Weston Points out the Obvious...

Harper is the weak link in the story. This is the reason the CPC are going nowhere and Harper hasn't a clue that when you are in a hole, you stop digging.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Wes...399361-sun.html

[Topaz]

Do we know which ridings participated and which didnt? I believe my MP is visiting my neighborhood and I would love to ask him about it.

The Libs used to have the names its on their website but I couoldn't find now, but I do remember seeing alot were from Ontario and of course through the rest of Canada. In Ontario, London had the names of the newly elected people and that's who got caught up in the scam the newlys. What they did with the money is advertise in Quebec.......no matter whose in the PMO ..its always Quebec.

[madmax]

What they did with the money is advertise in Quebec.......no matter whose in the PMO ..its always Quebec.

What the BLOODY H*)) is it with Quebec and funding schemes tied to advertising? What the H*** is wrong with these Conservatives to be so STUPID!!!

Have they no Shame? Why are Conservatives behaving like Liberals? Why would they do such antics, and antagonize their own base with funding schemes based on Quebec.

It's always Quebec, you are right, and handled no differently then the Liberal Party.

I don't think it is going to kill them in Quebec like the way the Liberal Brand has been affected. But perhaps in the West, people will wonder why "their guys" are behaving this way.

Bizzare.

[noahbody]

It's always Quebec, you are right, and handled no differently then the Liberal Party.

The difference between this and the Liberals is that 'the scheme' wasn't hidden, it was recorded and reported to the EC.