ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Never underestimate the amount of support an incumbant (especially a cabinet minister) will get in his/her riding, no matter how stupid the rest of the nations finds that MP's actions. Durham looks solidly Conservative so I doubt she'll lose her seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17967&view=findpost&p=627091 Why don't you go cry to the mod again? Again? Are you inhaling or what? Besides, as I've already told YOU 1/2 a dozen times I don't respond to snipets of my posts... You must be confused but..... as long as you don't respond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Again? Are you inhaling or what? You must be confused but..... as long as you don't respond Done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Cant be a forgery if only one party has possession. Its an internal document and as such can say anythihng, howver it cannot go to a third party like that. I think it could. It's her document. She can change anything on it she wants before signing it. Now if it was signed by some other party as a contract, for example, and then she altered it before signing then it would have to go back to that other party to initial the change. I think we're all just not used to hand-written alterations to documents or letters, but on the face of it, there's nothing illegal or improper about it. A cheque written on toilet paper is still legal, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 A cheque written on toilet paper is still legal, right? Depends on the colour of the ink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 If you truly believe in honest government and democracy than you have to believe what she did was wrong. Couldn't she just make another copy to make everything legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 IF that's what happpened, the word for it in the U.S. is forgery. Yes, but she didn't 'change' it, she excercised her right as a Minister to veto a document she has a right to veto, all in line with policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think it could. It's her document. She can change anything on it she wants before signing it. Now if it was signed by some other party as a contract, for example, and then she altered it before signing then it would have to go back to that other party to initial the change. I think we're all just not used to hand-written alterations to documents or letters, but on the face of it, there's nothing illegal or improper about it. A cheque written on toilet paper is still legal, right? Two other people had already signed it prior to the alteration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 If you truly believe in honest government and democracy than you have to believe what she did was wrong. Couldn't she just make another copy to make everything legal? Exactly. Of course Harper and all his cronies including the ass kissers on this board of course claim that it was the right thing to do to cancel the funding. The funding isn't the issue. If she cancelled the funding, there would be a debate but no one would be calling for her head. The fact is, she FORGED a document. She knowingly changed it without the knowledge or consent of the people who originally signed the document. That's is what we call illegal. You just can't get around that. Furthermore, I fully suspect the PMO was behind it. Why would she go back and forge a document she had previously approved unless she was directed? Furthermore, changing expert opinion from CIDA, I'd imagine, would save the trouble they had with the census - in that the experts actually approved our cut this time. The fact that Harper is saying she did nothing wrong is what makes this worse. He's aiding and abetting a criminal offense. As long as the cabinet supports her, they deserve to be held in contempt as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Exactly. Of course Harper and all his cronies including the ass kissers on this board of course claim that it was the right thing to do to cancel the funding. The funding isn't the issue. If she cancelled the funding, there would be a debate but no one would be calling for her head. The fact is, she FORGED a document. She knowingly changed it without the knowledge or consent of the people who originally signed the document. That's is what we call illegal. You just can't get around that. Furthermore, I fully suspect the PMO was behind it. Why would she go back and forge a document she had previously approved unless she was directed? Furthermore, changing expert opinion from CIDA, I'd imagine, would save the trouble they had with the census - in that the experts actually approved our cut this time. The fact that Harper is saying she did nothing wrong is what makes this worse. He's aiding and abetting a criminal offense. As long as the cabinet supports her, they deserve to be held in contempt as well. I'm having a bit of trouble over the word "forgery". Apparently, she had scrawled "not" on a copy of the document with a magic marker. I always thought that a forgery was an attempt to look as realistic as possible, in order to fool someone. A scrawl with a magic marker doesn't seem to meet that standard. If I drew a Mona Lisa with crayons, would you also consider that a forgery? And please, don't try to blow me off as some kind of Tory who can't see any fault with any CPC member. I've posted enough times that I'm NOT a Tory and what's more, I really couldn't care less what happens to Ms Oda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Done... Whizzer... Do yourself a favour and put that halfwit on ignore... You won't miss a thing... Edited February 18, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think it could. It's her document. She can change anything on it she wants before signing it. Now if it was signed by some other party as a contract, for example, and then she altered it before signing then it would have to go back to that other party to initial the change. I think we're all just not used to hand-written alterations to documents or letters, but on the face of it, there's nothing illegal or improper about it. A cheque written on toilet paper is still legal, right? There's certainly nothing wrong with modifying an unsigned document. My lawyer buggered up a name on a contract I was going to sign in his presence and he just scratched out the name and wrote in the proper one and initialed it. The key point to that is that there is an paper trail so that at any time someone else going through the file could recognize "Oh yes, the lawyer changed a screw up." To do so without some sort of initial by the change isn't illegal to my mind either, but can hardly be called creating an appropriate paper trail. It is most definitely very poor procedure, and much below the kind of professionalism we should expect of any Minister. So I'd say you're right that it's not illegal, but wrong that it isn't improper. However, even if we accept the alteration occurred when the document was signed, that doesn't change the critical fact that Oda mislead the House as to who had made the alteration, and further had insinuated that CIDA was behind the decision, when in fact it the Minister herself who had done it. An inappropriate procedural screw-up is one thing, a Minister lying to the House is quite another. To my mind, the document's history is completely irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I'm having a bit of trouble over the word "forgery". Apparently, she had scrawled "not" on a copy of the document with a magic marker. I always thought that a forgery was an attempt to look as realistic as possible, in order to fool someone. A scrawl with a magic marker doesn't seem to meet that standard. If I drew a Mona Lisa with crayons, would you also consider that a forgery? And please, don't try to blow me off as some kind of Tory who can't see any fault with any CPC member. I've posted enough times that I'm NOT a Tory and what's more, I really couldn't care less what happens to Ms Oda. That isn't the issue, is it? I think the document itself has become pretty much irrelevant, save perhaps for making a political point about withholding of funding from specific groups (and that largely comes from the contemptuous idiotic blowhard Kenney, a man so large in ego and so lacking in brain cells that he'd do better work as a hot air balloon). The issue is Oda's lies and obfuscations to Parliament, and that is something that should not be tolerated. If she had any moral fibre, she would resign, and if Harper had any sense of the dignity of the House, he'd fire her if she wouldn't, and if neither will do it then I fully support the Opposition in making history in finding her in contempt of Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 To my mind, the document's history is completely irrelevant. Exactly. It isn't because she altered the document that she should resign (IMO, that wasn't even a serious thing), it's because she so blatantly lied that she has no business keeping her job as a Minister of the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Yes, but she didn't 'change' it, she excercised her right as a Minister to veto a document she has a right to veto, all in line with policy. I'm quite certain there is an appropriate procedure for overturning a decision, and it's not scribbling "not" above sentence. At any rate, no one disputes her rights as a minister, though her competence could be questioned. What's at the heart of this is the fact that she violated the constitutionally guaranteed privileges or Parliament by lying about the fact that she had been the one that altered the document. Surely you agree that the principal that the Crown, and by extension its ministers, are ultimately answerable in full to Parliament, and Parliament's power to require the truth from Ministers of the Crown is unlimited, as is Parliament's power to punish those who deceive it. You would agree, wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Exactly. It isn't because she altered the document that she should resign (IMO, that wasn't even a serious thing), it's because she so blatantly lied that she has no business keeping her job as a Minister of the Crown. lied is very bad, made all the worse when she blamed someone else talk about shitty behaviour and the PM condones it... what does that tell us about his scruples, he should've asked for her resignation when she was first caught lying...but maybe he couldn't because it looks like it may have been his office that ordered the change...if she had come clean right at the beginning this would be all blown over by now...but as it is now she can no longer be trusted by us or the people who work in her department... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) This is just the opposition trying to make political hay out of nothing. They've done it before, they'll do it again. I'll just about guarantee that the average voter doesn't give a damn about this or even know what it's about. Maybe the Liberals finally have some fodder for an attack ad if they can find the cash. Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) This is just the opposition trying to make political hay out of nothing. They've done it before, they'll do it again. I'll just about guarantee that the average voter doesn't give a damn about this or even know what it's about. Maybe the Liberals finally have some fodder for an attack ad if they can find the cash. Sadly most voters won't know what it's about, but tell me, do you know what it's about, and do you feel appropriate that Ministers lie to Parliament? I'd like to get a sense of your position on violating the constitutional requirement that the Crown be answerable to Parliament? You know, all that morality stuff. In fact I wonder why you aren't outraged about an act of deceit, seeing as your such a soldier for Christ and all. Edited February 18, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitsy Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I'm quite certain there is an appropriate procedure for overturning a decision, and it's not scribbling "not" above sentence. I think this would be the appropriate procedure to follow unless, and it is a big unless, she had signed the document indicating her approval of the funding and then changed her mind or had it changed for her If she did not agree with the CIDA recommendation, her response was apparently to simply not sign the recommendation, and send it back to the agency. http://www.thehillti...yupdate/view/79 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Sadly most voters won't know what it's about, but tell me, do you know what it's about, and do you feel appropriate that Ministers lie to Parliament? I'd like to get a sense of your position on violating the constitutional requirement that the Crown be answerable to Parliament? You know, all that morality stuff. In fact I wonder why you aren't outraged about an act of deceit, seeing as your such a soldier for Christ and all. See the thing is that there is just accusations without much substance. What if Bev Oda is innocent in all this. Perhaps she approved the money but was over ruled by someone above her and is why she is being defended by the PM. I think it would be easier if she would just apologize to the House and then have the PM saying she'll be sanctioned then move on. End of story. Why they want to drag this out is beyond me frankly. Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 To my nose that BAD SMELL comes from Harper, being a Moroney trained "agent" and all, not to mention the way he's sneakily selling Canada out in much the same way Lyin' Brian did while driving Canada into another debt ridden period that the Liberals will AGAIN have to bring Canada out of (if it's still doable at that TIME)... Other than THAT we're not all that different Moroney and Lyin' Brian are both against the rules of the board. Your point is better made without reducing oneself to name calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Why they want to drag this out is beyond me frankly. My guess is that the CPC sees this as an election issue that they'd like to fight as opposed to say the budget. Have no doubt, Harper will try to spin this to his advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Chantal Hebert had a sensible editorial in The Star today.... Made a lot of sense to me. Harper stands alone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Chantal Hebert had a sensible editorial in The Star today.... Made a lot of sense to me. Harper stands alone I basically never agree with anything Hebert ever says as she is so far to the left it's insane. However it isn't a bad commentary. To me it would be much better for the PM to say he's going to look into it and report back to the House, in say a week or so, with his findings. His current behavior doesn't do much for attempting to appear as transparent as possible. It looks like he's trying to hide something which brings the Tories integrity into question. That's enough to turn off some voters. However if he is correct then he looks very Prime Ministerial indeed. Time will tell, as always. Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Never underestimate the amount of support an incumbant (especially a cabinet minister) will get in his/her riding, no matter how stupid the rest of the nations finds that MP's actions. Agreed 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.