Smear tactics in Ottawa

jdobbin · May 21, 2008

Well well well look who likes to sling the mud, but can't take it when slung back.

Who said that I don't like slinging mud or having it slung back? Problem is the Tories said they would be so different. Welcome to the mud.

Look who thinks they know what will help or hinder the center right. Ah for the days of a weak divided right wing, when any fool could take the liberals to a majority even with only 36% of the popular vote.

And even with a wounded Liberal party and struggling leader, the Tories can't even muster 34% in the most recent poll. I wonder how Tories will react when it looks like they can't win a majority...again.

jdobbin · May 21, 2008

No, I have no illusions about CPC honesty and integrity, however the smartest thing for them to do is keep quiet. As long as they do, the cops can't prove anything.

They can't really keep quiet because they will have to testify in questions in their civil trial. We'll see if Harper really wants to be under oath on some of the questions about what $1 million policy that the Cadman's assert was made in exchange for a vote. He'll have to explain what the terms of the financial considerations were and why Cadman reacted so negatively to it.

Shakeyhands · May 21, 2008

They can't really keep quiet because they will have to testify in questions in their civil trial. We'll see if Harper really wants to be under oath on some of the questions about what $1 million policy that the Cadman's assert was made in exchange for a vote. He'll have to explain what the terms of the financial considerations were and why Cadman reacted so negatively to it.

He'll lie under oath. Of that there is no doubt. They have proven it by their actions wrt their own promises of accountability.

Wild Bill · May 21, 2008

Who said that I don't like slinging mud or having it slung back? Problem is the Tories said they would be so different. Welcome to the mud.
And even with a wounded Liberal party and struggling leader, the Tories can't even muster 34% in the most recent poll. I wonder how Tories will react when it looks like they can't win a majority...again.

Well, by your polls it would seem Canadians favour "None of the above".

That's FAR from being ready to give the reins back to the Liberals.

It's not enough to put the other guy down. You also have to give reasons why your guy should be favoured!

It seems obvious that at least a sizeable portion of Canadian voters have no respect for any of the choices. In that sort of a mood it would certainly be a challenge for Dion to campaign with the slogan "Trust us! The Carbon Tax will be revenue neutral and won't hurt a bit!"

jdobbin · May 21, 2008

Well, by your polls it would seem Canadians favour "None of the above".
That's FAR from being ready to give the reins back to the Liberals.

It's not enough to put the other guy down. You also have to give reasons why your guy should be favoured!

I've already said I don't expect the Liberals to win. I just don't expect the Tories to win a majority.

It seems obvious that at least a sizeable portion of Canadian voters have no respect for any of the choices. In that sort of a mood it would certainly be a challenge for Dion to campaign with the slogan "Trust us! The Carbon Tax will be revenue neutral and won't hurt a bit!"

Certainly if he runs on that promise alone, he will have a hard time winning.

It is why I expect that he will run on large income tax cuts.

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

He'll lie under oath. Of that there is no doubt. They have proven it by their actions wrt their own promises of accountability.

There is no doubt the Prime Minister will lie under oath?

Wow Shakey, for someone who whines about treating people with respect and the poor treatment you have received in return the hypocrisy is amazing. That is a disgusting, classless and juvenile comment without question. Your 'proof' is baseless and a joke.

For someone who claims to be honourable your actions shame anyone who serves our country in a truly honourable manner.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Michael Bluth

White Doors · May 21, 2008

There is no doubt the Prime Minister will lie under oath?
Wow Shakey, for someone who whines about treating people with respect and the poor treatment you have received in return the hypocrisy is amazing. That is a disgusting, classless and juvenile comment without question. Your 'proof' is baseless and a joke.

For someone who claims to be honourable your actions shame anyone who serves our country in a truly honourable manner.

It does, admittedly, fit in with the title of the thread.

jdobbin · May 21, 2008

He'll lie under oath. Of that there is no doubt. They have proven it by their actions wrt their own promises of accountability.

I expect we'll hear a lot of "I don't knows."

It will be quite some time before the case is in court according to some experts on CTV this past weekend. It is quite possible it will not even be ready for trial before the next election. As befitting the largest libel claim in Canadian history, it could be appealed either way. Expect a few more years before it is decided. That is, if the government decides to drop it at some point.

As has been mentioned a few times in polls, the voting public thinks less of a litigious person. Decima was quite clear that there is a price to paid for suing someone in Canada.

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

I expect we'll hear a lot of "I don't knows."

Far classier and more reasonable than the shameful "He'll lie under oath. Of that there is no doubt."

In spite your clear disdain for Harper you haven't crossed the line into absolutely disgusting behaviour. Bravo to you.

Shakeyhands · May 21, 2008

I expect we'll hear a lot of "I don't knows."
It will be quite some time before the case is in court according to some experts on CTV this past weekend. It is quite possible it will not even be ready for trial before the next election. As befitting the largest libel claim in Canadian history, it could be appealed either way. Expect a few more years before it is decided. That is, if the government decides to drop it at some point.

As has been mentioned a few times in polls, the voting public thinks less of a litigious person. Decima was quite clear that there is a price to paid for suing someone in Canada.

The problem with that though is that the "I don't know's" will be a lie, clearly he does know exactly what was offered and when.

Either way, my bet is still that they will drop it.

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

The problem with that though is that the "I don't know's" will be a lie, clearly he does know exactly what was offered and when.

Even in the face of jdobbin's behaviour you can't recognize how disgusting your own was?

How do you know that Harper 'clearly' knows what was offered?

AngusThermopyle · May 21, 2008

The problem with that though is that the "I don't know's" will be a lie, clearly he does know exactly what was offered and when.

As it appears from your comments that you have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, maybe you should just jump into the fray and settle the entire matter right now.

Or could it be that you are just voicing an opinion based on your own bias and prejudice?

Shakeyhands · May 21, 2008

As it appears from your comments that you have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, maybe you should just jump into the fray and settle the entire matter right now.
Or could it be that you are just voicing an opinion based on your own bias and prejudice?

Yes... I can admit that though.

Given the evidence that we have, Cadmans wife and daughters comments and the recording oif Harper himself, is there really any doubt that something was offered in your mind?

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

Yes... I can admit that though.
Given the evidence that we have, Cadmans wife and daughters comments and the recording oif Harper himself, is there really any doubt that something was offered in your mind?

It's fair to believe there were discussions of some kind. However, that doesn't imply there was an offer or an actual bribe.

It would be legitimate to have covered campaign expenses for example.

madmax · May 21, 2008

It's fair to believe there were discussions of some kind. However, that doesn't imply there was an offer or an actual bribe.
It would be legitimate to have covered campaign expenses for example.

Mr. Finley's silence is deafening.

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

Mr. Finley's silence is deafening.

So is Shakeyhands on his disgusting charge that there is "no doubt" the Prime Minister will lie under oath.

At least Doug Finley has the likelihood he could be involved in a court case to explain his behaviour.

Shakey? No excuse. Just utter contempt, hyopcrisy and a lack of basic human decency.

jdobbin · May 21, 2008

The problem with that though is that the "I don't know's" will be a lie, clearly he does know exactly what was offered and when.

Well, someone has to know what was offered because Harper admits that much.

It is going to be pretty hard to shake off the Cadman family claim about a $1 million insurance claim. And if the counter argument is that financial offer was to pay for Cadman's reelection, the question will have to be asked of the Cadman family: "Was he really going to run again? And if so, how much was offered to help pay for that?"

Either way, my bet is still that they will drop it.

Civil trials can be pretty messy and long affairs. I can't think of a government that has responded so many times with "sue me" or "I'll sue."

Fortunata · May 21, 2008

Just utter contempt, hyopcrisy and a lack of basic human decency.

Ha ha ha, you're funny. Contempt of any politician seems fair; after all what makes a politician a politician? More often than not it appears that it is a lust for power when it should be to help his fellow citizen. Hypocrisy? Not if he tells it how he sees it instead of the more partisan on this board who defends anything his leader tells him. Basic human decency? Because he criticizes your hero?

Your hero has had many opportunities to take a high road and he has chosen not to. He has brought our political circus to new lows. He never misses an attempt to smear, personally attack and prevaricate if not down-right lie. Susan Delacourt was told by a Con MP that Harper would "chide" MPs if they missed an opportunity to smear a Lib during Question Period. Just more ... but the Liberals ... whine from this opposition mentality governing party. Defend them all you want but don't expect others to like the tactics, tone, non-transparency, closed (and closed minded) and generally pit bull clowns that you so seem to admire.

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

Just more ... but the Liberals ... whine from this opposition mentality governing party. Defend them all you want but don't expect others to like the tactics, tone, non-transparency, closed (and closed minded) and generally pit bull clowns that you so seem to admire.

The perfect place for it indeed.

You and shakey take offence to the tactics of the CPC, as you see them. But then hypocritically lower yourselves completely to the gutter with language that truly is disgusting.

Too bad for you Steph is such a pathetic joke as leader of the LPC. A good two or three more years on the opposition benches for the Liberals. At least. :lol:

Fortunata · May 21, 2008

Too bad for you Steph is such a pathetic joke as leader of the LPC. A good two or three more years on the opposition benches for the Liberals. At least.

Number 1, I don't vote for Steph

Number 2, I don't care if the Libs ever get back in as long as Steve gets out

Number 3, Tut tut - just utter contempt, hypocrisy and a lack of basic human decency. Who again is the hypocrite?

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

Number 3, Tut tut - just utter contempt, hypocrisy and a lack of basic human decency. Who again is the hypocrite?

Saying Steph is a pathetic joke as OLO isn't hypocritical, utter contempt or lacking in basic human decency. It's arguably contemptful, but that's all. I'll debate you on the relevance of the terms as they apply to mine and Shakey's posts. As you don't seem to understand any of them, as you clearly can't find a synonym for them, it is an exercise that you will likely not engage in.

Do you know what a synonym is? :lol:

Fortunata · May 21, 2008

Saying Steph is a pathetic joke as OLO isn't hypocritical, utter contempt or lacking in basic human decency. It's arguably contemptful, but that's all. I'll debate you on the relevance of the terms as they apply to mine and Shakey's posts. As you don't seem to understand any of them, as you clearly can't find a synonym for them, it is an exercise that you will likely not engage in.
Do you know what a synonym is?

Do you know what a hypocrite is? :lol:

PS, that sounds like a personal attack which you seem to be a main tattler of?

Can you say hypocrite? :lol: :lol:

Shakeyhands · May 21, 2008

I had to laugh at this today....

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/428111

The praise was for Canada – and, more specifically, for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whom Olmert referred to on three occasions as "Steve," calling him "a fantastic guy" who is committed to the same values as Israel.

I LOL'd!!!

Michael Bluth · May 21, 2008

I had to laugh at this today....
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/428111

I LOL'd!!!

You have a problem with our PM being on friendly terms with the leader of Israel?

Is the long history of degradation of the Jewish people so insignificant in your eyes that you make light of our strong relationship with the Israeli people?

I guess we've now found an extension for your lack of respect. Stephen Harper and the people of Israel. Who is next shakey?

Edited May 21, 2008 by Michael Bluth