jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I am going to go that far that the Liberals as an organization leaked this. However I do believe some Liberal in NB thought this was a story even if it was made up and they had to be big enough to call up John Irving and tell him. So it isn't some no body it is someone who is bigger. This is the same innuendo that the Tories objected in regards to themselves. You have bought into it as well without any evidence. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) This is the same innuendo that the Tories objected in regards to themselves. You have bought into it as well without any evidence. There is plenty of evidence. You are asserting that John Irving just made it up on his own he ha already said he had a source, and think because the majority of people their were High up Liberals, and maybe it was a Liberal out of office I don't know, that they are the ones who leaked it. Also CTV reported it was the Liberals, and yet no one at CTV was fired unlike the two workers at this paper. Why aren't the Liberals sueing Dobbin? Edited August 4, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 There is plenty of evidence. You are asserting that John Irving just made it up on his own he ha already said he had a source, and think because the majority of people their were High up Liberals, and maybe it was a Liberal out of office I don't know, that they are the ones who leaked it. There is no evidence. Irving said the changes were made in the editing process. No reporter was fed that information. The editor and publisher put it in themselves. There was no mention of a source and I defy you to show one here. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Also CTV reported it was the Liberals, and yet no one at CTV was fired unlike the two workers at this paper. Why aren't the Liberals sueing Dobbin? CTV reported that they were told it was Liberals and haven't named names. If they did, they would be likely looking at a lawsuit. Not surprising, they have not repeated that statement. Innuendo isn't against the law. It is just sleazy. And you are prepared to believe it. Edited August 4, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) There is no evidence. Irving said the changes were made in the editing process. No reporter was fed that information. The editor and publisher put it in themselves. There was no mention of a source and I defy you to show one here. And yet we ave this coming down the pipe. It honestly looks like Liberal insiders are the ones who pushed this story. No bias here I bought the story at first too and published it on my own blog. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072907.html "The Liberals' leading political strategist, Warren Kinsella, has strongly pushed the story originally promulgated by the Telegraph-Journal on his blog. In light of the paper's apology, he has continued to insist that the PM did indeed pocket the host. Curiously, the time on Kinsella's blog post was changed earlier today to three hours later, a fact that could indicate an attempt to cover up the fact that he posted the Telegraph-Journal's July 8th story very early in the morning on the same date it was published. Earlier today, Kinsella's blog indicated that he had posted the video of Harper receiving Communion and the Telegraph-Journal story to his blog at 6:53 a.m. on July 8th, the morning the Telegraph-Journal issued its report. In the afternoon, however, the time for all posts had been moved ahead three hours, so that the post about the communion flap now appears to have been posted at 9:53 a.m. A quick search of Google Cache, however, confirmed that the time had in fact been changed and that the post had previously been listed as 6:53 a.m. It is uncertain, however, if the change in time on the blog is related to the Harper situation or not." Edited August 4, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 And yet we ave this coming down the pipe.http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072907.html Yes and there is a lawsuit in progress. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Yes and there is a lawsuit in progress. Why did he edit his blog to make it look like it was published after the news paper came out. You keep saying their is no evidence but there is more evidence for this then Harper not eating the Wafer and I am sure you bought into that. I guess if the Lawsuit happens we will see if he did or didn't? Edited August 4, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Why did he edit his blog to make it look like it was published after the news paper came out. You keep saying their is no evidence but there is more evidence for this then Harper not eating the Wafer and I am sure you bought into that. Keep it up and you will be named in a lawsuit as well. He has already stated that he was going through a denial of service attack. Many of the times changed on his site because of it. He has the paperwork to back it up and he is suing the Lifesite News right now about all their accusations. From Kinsella's site: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/ I'm assuming your question is genuine. You'll forgive me if I delete the repetition of the libel over which I'm suing. Since being hit by a few denial of service attacks in recent weeks, we've been moving this web site to a more robust platform, a new ISP, etc. Along the way, the preferences of the site got messed with. I noticed the times on the web site did not reflect the actual time, and yesterday asked one of my guys to fix it. He did that. And there's a paper trail, too. What the supposed Christians at Lifesite published is, pardon the expression, a goddamned lie. And they are going to pay for it, big time. They've ignored our letters last night and this morning. They have therefore moved this into a very different phase, one they will not like, at all. So, any repetition of the accusation here and you may be hearing from Kinsella's lawyer. Edited August 4, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Keep it up and you will be named in a lawsuit as well.He has already stated that he was going through a denial of service attack. Many of the times changed on his site because of it. He has the paperwork to back it up and he is suing the Lifesite News right now about all their accusations. I bet the Liberals would love to sue a small blogger into shutting down if they are no ready to praise them and talk about how great they are at web 2.0 and how Iggy is god. Too bad we live in a free country though. Good luck to them though maybe someday they will on all the newspapers, media outlets, and cut shut the Internet down. Yet Lifesite is sticking by their original story and not firing anyone for making things up. Weird what happens when you are not fed news from a political party eh? Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I bet the Liberals would love to sue a small blogger into shutting down if they are no ready to praise them and talk about how great they are at web 2.0 and how Iggy is god. Too bad we live in a free country though. Good luck to them though maybe someday they will on all the newspapers, media outlets, and cut shut the Internet down. Kinsella is a small blogger being accused by a well funded group. If you are going to print something about someone, you ought to be prepared to defend it. This is a free country and we have laws to make it so. Yet Lifesite is sticking by their original story and not firing anyone for making things up. Weird what happens when you are not fed news from a political party eh? And now it is in the hands of the lawyers. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 So, any repetition of the accusation here and you may be hearing from Kinsella's lawyer. I bet that would go over real well in Canada, after the Liberals declared their alliance to net neutrality last week. It would make a great news story. "Liberals sue forum poster for repeating news outlet." I bet it would play well across the country. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I bet that would go over real well in Canada, after the Liberals declared their alliance to net neutrality last week. It would make a great news story. "Liberals sue forum poster for repeating news outlet." I bet it would play well across the country. It isn't a Liberal party lawsuit. Go ahead, make Kinsella's day. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Kinsella is a small blogger being accused by a well funded group.If you are going to print something about someone, you ought to be prepared to defend it. This is a free country and we have laws to make it so. And now it is in the hands of the lawyers. I agree. Although I don't about this small blogger bisuness he is a news paper contributer and columnist h has written for Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, the Hill times, and National post. It is kinda like calling Peter Mansbridge just some news anchor. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) It isn't a Liberal party lawsuit.Go ahead, make Kinsella's day. Yah I bet that would not be linked back the Liberal party. Anyway the point is there is evidence to link this back to the Liberals no matter how much you claim their isn't. Edited August 4, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I agree. Although I don't about this small blogger bisuness he is a news paper contributer and columnist h has written for Globe and Mail, the Ottawa Citizen, the Hill times, and National post. It is kinda like calling Peter Mansbridge just some news anchor. He is a freelancer. He is not a well funded organization or media group. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Yah I bet that would not be linked back the Liberal party. Anyway the point is there is evidence to link this back to the Liberals no matter how much you claim their isn't. And there are lawsuits about it no matter how much you think the matter is settled. In any event, the media has moved on and this is just being used as a fundraising grievance by the Tories. I doubt that most people even care. Edited August 4, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 And there are lawsuits about it no matter how much you think the matter is settled. Hahaha read Warren's site can't say I read it much but I loved this. "Is it libel to falsely accuse someone of a cover-up - of a conspiracy, in effect - without contacting them for their side of the story, without making the slightest effort to ascertain the true facts? In the Commonwealth, yes it is." I wonder how many times he contacted the PM at the G8 when he was blogging on Wafergate you think it was what 5 maybe 6 times he called the PM up? Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I wonder how many times he contacted the PM at the G8 when he was blogging on Wafergate you think it was what 5 maybe 6 times he called the PM up? He didn't make the accusation. I think you forget this is what the lawsuit is about. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 He didn't make the accusation. I think you forget this is what the lawsuit is about. I didn't read an accusation in the life site news article either. There is defendant innuendo but there is no accusation. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I didn't read an accusation in the life site news article either. There is defendant innuendo but there is no accusation. They named names and now there is a lawsuit. Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Wow the NYT times is repeating it might have been a Liberal insider to leak this information. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/business...tml?_r=1&em Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Wow the NYT times is repeating it might have been a Liberal insider to leak this information. They mention that the Irvings may have acted to curry favour with Liberals. Where does it say anything about an insider? That combination that has prompted supporters of Mr. Harper, a Conservative, to suggest in blogs and on Twitter that the Irvings planted the story to improve the fortunes of the opposition Liberal Party. At the same time, some Liberal bloggers claim that the retraction was a bid by the family to curry favor with Mr. Harper. Edited August 4, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) They mention that the Irvings may have acted to curry favour with Liberals. Where does it say anything about an insider? I know I think it was Warren Kinsella who stated this right or repeated it? I wonder if contacted Harper and the Irvings before he published that. Edited August 4, 2009 by punked Quote
jdobbin Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I know I think it was Warren Kinsella who stated this right? I wonder if contacted Harper and the Irvings before he published that. Where was this cited? Quote
punked Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 Where was this cited? http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?en...ry090728-112931 Quote
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.