Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 However much you/the CBC/left wing fanatics disagree with Harper, everyone must admit that he is not on the take. In that sense, he's honest. Sure, as far as we know, he's honest in that respect....that doesn't change the reality that he and his ministers have lied and broken promises...and whether they are MXM allegations or from another source is rather irrelevant if they turn out to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Sure, as far as we know, he's honest in that respect....that doesn't change the reality that he and his ministers have lied and broken promises...and whether they are MXM allegations or from another source is rather irrelevant if they turn out to be true. Oh come on. If lying or breaking promises is the standard by which corruption is judged then every government in the history of Canada has been corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Oh come on. If lying or breaking promises is the standard by which corruption is judged then every government in the history of Canada has been corrupt. .... so why are you only pissed with the Liberals for their corrupt regime under Chretien? (which it was by the way). Dont answer that!! I know why... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Oh come on. If lying or breaking promises is the standard by which corruption is judged then every government in the history of Canada has been corrupt. I would encourage you to read the title of this thread, and then look up the definition of the word honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 I would encourage you to read the title of this thread, and then look up the definition of the word honest. I think I'll look up the definition of pedantic instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 (edited) I think I'll look up the definition of pedantic instead. It's no surprise to read that you need to look it up to know what it means.... Edited April 17, 2010 by Born Free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 I've not bothered to participate in the Guergis threads of late, and the reason for that is that so much of the rhetoric has become ridiculous. I don't know how many times I've read the Liberal supporters here trying to equate this Guergis/Jaffer stuff to the sponsorship scandal. How utterly ludicrous that is. What can you say to somebody who thinks they're the same? Why even bother talking to somebody who argues that they are. The Liberal supporters here have been trying to find a Conservative equivalent to the sponsorship scandal for years, and failing miserably. For Harper, it's not sufficient to be honest in fact. Cabinet ministers must be honest, and also appear to be honest. This is it in a nutshell. There is an old principle in law that goes something like "justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done." I think there's an unstated but corresponding idea in government that would go something like "propriety must be maintained, and propriety must be seen to be maintained." Harper gets that... Chretien never did. Whether she has provably done anything that's against the letter of the law or not, the possibility that she may have assisted Jaffer's lobbying efforts is enough to warrant her removal from cabinet. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 (edited) I don't know how many times I've read the Liberal supporters here trying to equate this Guergis/Jaffer stuff to the sponsorship scandal. How utterly ludicrous that is. What can you say to somebody who thinks they're the same? Why even bother talking to somebody who argues that they are. They aren't the same, but quite frankly, allegations of influence peddling being funnelled through the office of a cabinet minister can be considered just as serious as what happened during the sponsorship scandal if they are found to be true. Edited April 17, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 They aren't the same, but quite frankly, allegations of influence peddling being funnelled through the office of a cabinet minister can be considered just as serious as what happened during the sponsorship scandal if they are found to be true. Either you lack information about the full scope of the sponsorship scandal, or your bias has warped your sense of perspective. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 I don't know how many times I've read the Liberal supporters here trying to equate this Guergis/Jaffer stuff to the sponsorship scandal. How utterly ludicrous that is. What can you say to somebody who thinks they're the same? Why even bother talking to somebody who argues that they are. look's the same from where I'm sitting, illegal activities by a cabinet minister...yup same thing..corruption... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Either you lack information about the full scope of the sponsorship scandal, or your bias has warped your sense of perspective. -k Or perhaps it's your bias that is standing in the way. I don't pin this on the government any more than I pinned the sponsorship scandal on Paul Martin. I do say that these allegations are extremely serious, on the same level as the sponsorship scandal. I'm not sure you realize how dangerous it could become if we let possible influence peddling slip through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Either you lack information about the full scope of the sponsorship scandal, or your bias has warped your sense of perspective. -k Save your breath, Kimmy! To some folks, there's just no such thing as perspective or context. It's enough to either like or dislike a politician, or anybody, for that matter! If you tend to like liberals and dislike Harper and Tories, moral equivalency is not something that needs to be measured. The sponsorship scandal is easy to measure. It was hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars! Helena and Rahim measure nowhere near that amount with their "alleged" influence peddling. Doesn't matter. If you want to smear the Tories, you measure it the same. It has more to do with your very perception or definition of a yardstick. Some of us think more mathematically, or in practical terms. Others are more intuitive, with "feelings". "Ne're the twain shall meet!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 (edited) It was hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars! Money is most certainly not the only yard stick for morality, nor should it be. Morality isn't about calculation or mathematics for the most part, and neither is ethics. Edited April 17, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Or perhaps it's your bias that is standing in the way. I don't pin this on the government any more than I pinned the sponsorship scandal on Paul Martin. I do say that these allegations are extremely serious, on the same level as the sponsorship scandal. I'm not sure you realize how dangerous it could become if we let possible influence peddling slip through. I'm not minimizing influence peddling. I'm trying to point out the difference in scale that you seem completely blind to. To put it in perspective: If the worst of the allegations against Guergis are true, it's very similar to a certain cabinet minister phoning the Business Development Bank of Canada to lobby on behalf of a friend who wanted a loan for a friend who wanted to develop a hotel near Shawinigan. The guy who did that remained in cabinet for many years afterward and was re-elected repeatedly by Canadians, and it is little more than a footnote in his career because in comparison to the sponsorship scandal, it is almost insignificant in scale. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 We don't know the scale of this yet. Influence peddling is a complete breech of trust, regardless of the monetary value involved. Despite your attempts to downplay this, and though it is not on the scale of the sponsorship scandal, I would say that it is just as serious an issue when it comes to honesty and trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 We don't know the scale of this yet. Influence peddling is a complete breech of trust, regardless of the monetary value involved. Despite your attempts to downplay this, and though it is not on the scale of the sponsorship scandal, I would say that it is just as serious an issue when it comes to honesty and trust. Quit saying I'm trying to downplay influence peddling. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that the sponsorship scandal was in a completely different galaxy from influence peddling. And you yourself seem to recognize that. Finding a Conservative analogue to Adscam is a holy grail for you guys, a futile quest that'll never find fruition. Comparing the allegations against Guergis to the sponsorship scandal is stupid. It makes Liberal supporters look desperate and foolish. You guys would be wise to give up that line and just stick to the influence peddling allegations. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 And, if one wanted to compare Harper's ethics to those of his predecessors, I think it would be very appropriate to compare how Harper has dealt with Guergis to the way that Chretien dealt with the cabinet minister who leaned on the BDC to secure a loan for the Auberge Grand-Mere. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 (edited) Finding a Conservative analogue to Adscam is a holy grail for you guys, a futile quest that'll never find fruition. -k Why, because these people are on the whole that much more honest than the Liberals? Saying there's been something similar you're quite right is ludicrous. Saying it will never happen is equally ludicrous. Furthermore, money isn't the be all and end all of political scandals. To me, suspending parliament, though having nothing to do with money whatsoever, is far worse. Money can be repaid, damage to our democratic institutions can't be repaired so easily. Edited April 17, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 The Liberal supporters here have been trying to find a Conservative equivalent to the sponsorship scandal for years, and failing miserably. As a non-Liberal supporter I must advise you that a conservative equivalent has already been uncovered. The scandal went to the top of the heap too. Now we have another one in the conservative ranks. Perhaps you dont mind it if a PM or a Minister shows disregard for parliament and perhaps its ethics standards , but I certainly do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 And, if one wanted to compare Harper's ethics to those of his predecessors, I think it would be very appropriate to compare how Harper has dealt with Guergis to the way that Chretien dealt with the cabinet minister who leaned on the BDC to secure a loan for the Auberge Grand-Mere. -k Neither party seems to be interested in ethics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 Why, because these people are on the whole that much more honest than the Liberals? Saying there's been something similar you're quite right is ludicrous. Saying it will never happen is equally ludicrous. It won't happen because nobody will ever be that stupid again. As a non-Liberal supporter I must advise you that a conservative equivalent has already been uncovered. The scandal went to the top of the heap too. haha, sure. What's that? Schreiber? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 (edited) Save your breath, Kimmy! To some folks, there's just no such thing as perspective or context. It's enough to either like or dislike a politician, or anybody, for that matter! Oh noooo.. Not another moral equivalency post. Oh my! Your guy's lack of ethics are worse than my guys lack of ethics so you have no right to criticize my guy..... Are you so incapable of forming independant thought when it comes to observing the shit on a stick that is happening in the government? Edited April 17, 2010 by Born Free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 It won't happen because nobody will ever be that stupid again. Don't underestimate the power of greed. aha, sure. What's that? Schreiber? -k I could be wrong but I thought it was implied that it was the subversion of the supremacy of parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born Free Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 haha, sure. What's that? Schreiber? -k No. I'm refering to the lawyer guy who ran the Canadian Conservative government back in the late 80's to the early 90's and took large cash payments and stuck 'em in a safe without declaring them until he knew he was about to be caught in the headlights. But then he only paid half the taxes he should have. That guy! Ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 18, 2010 Report Share Posted April 18, 2010 Quit saying I'm trying to downplay influence peddling. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that the sponsorship scandal was in a completely different galaxy from influence peddling. And you yourself seem to recognize that. Finding a Conservative analogue to Adscam is a holy grail for you guys, Yes, for people like me...who voted Conservative last election and probably will this election. I'm not pinning this on Harper, I'm saying this is a big deal, on the scale of misappropriation of funds. And no matter what you say, it's clear to everyone (but you and a few people apparently) that you're trying to downplay it with the usual line, this time in a different form....but the Liberals!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.