eyeball Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Stephan Harper is a proven serial liar. Any political advertisement that says so will have effectively been authorized by Harper himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 I just love how Harper tried to spin this one yesterday... Biggest bald faced lie yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 They can say that he was lying though. Harper obviously believed it was altered. They can say that he was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 As the oppositions put it, the economy is getting worse. They say people are scared of losing jobs and homes. They all but scream the sky's falling!!! You think Dion or Layton will be brave enough to switch the channel back to the Cadman affair again? Let them try. We'll see who gets labeled as "insensitive." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Harper obviously believed it was altered. They can say that he was wrong. No, he's not saying that he "believes" it is, rather he's stated outright that it has been altered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 As the oppositions put it, the economy is getting worse. They say people are scared of losing jobs and homes. They all but scream the sky's falling!!!You think Dion or Layton will be brave enough to switch the channel back to the Cadman affair again? Let them try. We'll see who gets labeled as "insensitive." It's a legitimate, and very serious issue, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 It's a legitimate, and very serious issue, though. I think the hearing is still going on, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 No, he's not saying that he "believes" it is, rather he's stated outright that it has been altered. He stated his opinion. Which tantamounts to what he thinks/believes. That it's been altered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 We'll see who gets labeled as "insensitive." It is Harper that is taken it to court to bankrupt the Liberals. The false outrage that this has not disappeared is a little much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) It is Harper that is taken it to court to bankrupt the Liberals. The false outrage that this has not disappeared is a little much. Well if there is reason for him to believe that he's been defamed, why shouldn't he take them to court? The Liberals had posted some materials in their website, if I'm not mistaken? Why shouldn't they be held liable if they did say something defamatory? Being a financially broked political party is not a license...nor is it another entitlement to freely defame anyone without consequence. Let the court decide if they are guilty or not. If the Liberal Party is found guilty and ended up being bankrupt .....they've only themselves to blame. Edited October 13, 2008 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
independent Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Well if there is reason for him to believe that he's been defamed, why shouldn't he take them to court? The Liberals had posted some materials in their website, if I'm not mistaken? Why shouldn't they be held liable if they did say something defamatory? Being a financially broked political party is not a license...nor is it another entitlement to freely defame anyone without consequence. Let the court decide if they are guilty or not. If the Liberal Party is found guilty and ended up being bankrupt .....they've only themselves to blame. You know you totally reversed your opinion from the Liberals should not have taken Poor Harper to Court. To why should Harper not take the Liberals to court and bankrupt them. That could be seen as a double standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 You know you totally reversed your opinion from the Liberals should not have taken Poor Harper to Court. To why should Harper not take the Liberals to court and bankrupt them. That could be seen as a double standard. Eh? Explain please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Well if there is reason for him to believe that he's been defamed, why shouldn't he take them to court? By all means, go to court. But then don't complain that the Cadman issue should go away. The Liberals had posted some materials in their website, if I'm not mistaken? Why shouldn't they be held liable if they did say something defamatory? Being a financially broked political party is not a license...nor is it another entitlement to freely defame anyone without consequence. Let the court decide if they are guilty or not.If the Liberal Party is found guilty and ended up being bankrupt .....they've only themselves to blame. Harper said that the tape was altered when the Liberals said it looked like he was indicating he knew an offer was made to Cadman. The expert the Tories wanted to look at the tape now says there was no alteration. Harper should be careful. If the court thinks his case is baseless, he might be responsible for damages to the Liberal party. And he would have no one to blame but himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 He stated his opinion. Which tantamounts to what he thinks/believes. That it's been altered. Harper’s lawyer, Richard Dearden, convinced Justice Charles Hackland last month to postpone a hearing into the veracity of the audio tape until after the federal election. The two sides have a conference scheduled with Hackland next week on other aspects of the case. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/canadavotes/ne...053821-sun.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 He stated his opinion. Which tantamounts to what he thinks/believes. That it's been altered. The fact is that he seems to be basing his beliefs on uncertain facts, which isn't very prudent if he wants to file a lawsuit of the nature that he has. However you look at it, it doesn't look good when your own expert determines that the tape is not altered contrary to what you believe. Oh, and then to try and delay it so that his findings won't be revealed during an election that you called (by breaking your own law!!!!) is really laughable, too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/canadavotes/ne...053821-sun.html An excerpt from your link stated: "In the report Koenig concluded that the first part of Zytaruk’s interview with Harper, which contains the key portions that the prime minister has contested, was intact. The second part, beginning roughly one minute and 41 seconds into the tape, was a new recording that was made over the final part of the original recording, he said. But the first crucial minute and 41 seconds had not been altered." Now I'm curious what was that original recording in the second part? Why was a new recording made over the final part? As I stated before, the hearing is still going on. Let the court decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 However you look at it, it doesn't look good when your own expert determines that the tape is not altered contrary to what you believe. Depends on who's looking and from what angle. To me, it doesn't make sense for Harper to hire an expert only to prove him wrong....if he (Harper) doesn't truly think the tape had been altered. It also showed that Harper did not "buy" the expert into agreeing to his testimony....which opposition and supporters will no doubt accuse him of doing if the findings did show it was altered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Well if there is reason for him to believe that he's been defamed, why shouldn't he take them to court? The Liberals had posted some materials in their website, if I'm not mistaken? Why shouldn't they be held liable if they did say something defamatory? Being a financially broked political party is not a license...nor is it another entitlement to freely defame anyone without consequence. Let the court decide if they are guilty or not. If the Liberal Party is found guilty and ended up being bankrupt .....they've only themselves to blame. Not only that, but people need to keep in mind that harper is not suing the author, the publisher, or Donna Cadman. He's suing the Liberals because what they posted on their website made claims that go beyond what is on the tape or the book, and they have no evidence to back that up. As far as suing the Liberals just because they're bankrupt, perhaps that's why Harper was so low key during this election, and refused to hit back every time that Dion called him a liar? Maybe he's planning on suing the Liberals for their actual campaign too? Edited October 13, 2008 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_puck Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Depends on who's looking and from what angle. To me, it doesn't make sense for Harper to hire an expert only to prove him wrong....if he (Harper) doesn't truly think the tape had been altered. It also showed that Harper did not "buy" the expert into agreeing to his testimony....which opposition and supporters will no doubt accuse him of doing if the findings did show it was altered. Harper hired a few experts to examine the tapes. They were given a copy of the tape from the Conservatives (who got it from the Liberals, who got it from somebodys website). They were limited to what the Conservatives asked them to do. They also disagreed among themselves. The final expert, although paid for by the Conservatives, was supervised by the court using the orriginal tape. I guess the question I would ask you is "If Harper though the tape was altered, why did he try to prevent the release of the study until after the election ?" If he knew he would be vindicated, why would he go through an election with a cloud over your head?. Of course, I could also ask "why would you offer to help with someones election when you knew they were not going to run" ? Or, "why would one of your own candidates make this story up?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 This tape thing is not an issue. Every lawyer - political - judge - and buisness person misleads..This is common....you may as well round up 80% of the population and convict them of fraud. Big deal - Look at McGinty or Malroney or Layton - who is so dumb he condones the use of one of his own family to participate in a war waged by corrupt individuals...Layton does not need to lie because he is so delluded that his whole existance is a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 I guess the question I would ask you is "If Harper though the tape was altered, why did he try to prevent the release of the study until after the election ?" Because it's the most sensible thing to do for any politician in the midst of running a campaign! What campaigning politician would want any distraction from his message? Look what happened in all the gaffes involving all parties! Their messages were hijacked and the focus was on the gaffes instead of policies or platforms! Everyone is saying "we should focus on the substance!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Not only that, but people need to keep in mind that harper is not suing the author, the publisher, or Donna Cadman. He's suing the Liberals because what they posted on their website made claims that go beyond what is on the tape or the book, and they have no evidence to back that up.As far as suing the Liberals just because they're bankrupt, perhaps that's why Harper was so low key during this election, and refused to hit back every time that Dion called him a liar? Maybe he's planning on suing the Liberals for their actual campaign too? I didn't get the chance to see that website. The Liberals must be bracing for the next lawsuit. No wonder Dion's been whining, "'e sues everyone ooo don't agree with 'im." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
independent Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Because it's the most sensible thing to do for any politician in the midst of running a campaign!What campaigning politician would want any distraction from his message? Look what happened in all the gaffes involving all parties! Their messages were hijacked and the focus was on the gaffes instead of policies or platforms! Everyone is saying "we should focus on the substance!" Harper alleged bribing a politician in your mind is not important to the election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 I didn't get the chance to see that website. The Liberals must be bracing for the next lawsuit. No wonder Dion's been whining, "'e sues everyone ooo don't agree with 'im." So is this basically a slur of all French-speakers in this country? Seems like it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Because it's the most sensible thing to do for any politician in the midst of running a campaign!What campaigning politician would want any distraction from his message? Look what happened in all the gaffes involving all parties! Their messages were hijacked and the focus was on the gaffes instead of policies or platforms! Everyone is saying "we should focus on the substance!" Oh, so now you're all concerned about having a campaign that focuses on the issues when Harper is under the microscope... Guess you missed all those Con attack ads, Harper's habitual bald face lying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.