scribblet Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The standing committee on foreign affairs has been investigating this since last year, just a lot of faux outrage to get the pot boiling before election time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 where is the RCMP - that is called fraud. Point out the fraud.....then we can answer your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Point out the fraud.....then we can answer your question. Document altered, funding not given. Funding approved --- document altered - funding didn't get sent because of the impression the funding was not approved. There for the person who would be funded was not. This was done by fraudulent representation of facts. FRAUD. Seems pretty clear to me. What don't you get? It is a classic fraud. It is fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Document altered, funding not given. Funding approved --- document altered - funding didn't get sent because of the impression the funding was not approved. There for the person who would be funded was not. This was done by fraudulent representation of facts. FRAUD. Seems pretty clear to me. What don't you get? It is a classic fraud. It is fraud. What dont I get? Well, first off , based on your post..." defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service" no one was defrauded of money property or valuable security. My answers are based on the OP's link toi Macleans. Document altered was an in house document, thus they are within their rights to amend it. Funding was "to be approved" but had not been yet. Thus, no fraud . Edited February 15, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I didn't even have to click the original link to know that the article scribbles posted was from the Jerusalem Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 When you change a document, its not "fudged". Its Forged. There is a huge distinction. Oda is not fit for public service, yet I believe this incompetent person will get relected. Well I completely agree with you. Fudged just seemed like a fun word to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I can't really agree with you here. Yes, she got it right, but she didn't have to fudge the documents. I don't understand how people can accuse her of "doctoring" or "fudging" a document. Rendering the word in type and insterting it so as to make it look like it was originally intended to be there by the authors would be "doctoring" or "fudging" the document. Scribbling a word in by hand makes it blatantly clear that it was added by someone other than the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 What dont I get? Well, first off , based on your post..." defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service" no one was defrauded of money property or valuable security. My answers are based on the OP's link toi Macleans. Document altered was an in house document, thus they are within their rights to amend it. Funding was "to be approved" but had not been yet. Thus, no fraud . That is fraud and you are abetting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Document altered was an in house document, thus they are within their rights to amend it.Funding was "to be approved" but had not been yet. Thus, no fraud. I don't see where the fraud, doctoring, forging, or fudging took place, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I don't see where the fraud, doctoring, forging, or fudging took place, either. Well not to insult your intelligence but altering a document is pretty much that. You not knowing that invalidates any position you have. Perhaps it is senile dementia. I'm sure G Bambino doesn't know what this post means either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) This is why a moderate Conservative a la a Progressive Conservative type party is needed check out this page to see what we stand for and believe that integrity, accountability and transparency are needed. Harper's government is full of incompetents and people who think that if they blame the Liberals for all of their mistakes will get them sympathy but it won't you need to own up for your actions. The site for our platforms are: http://centristparty.piczo.com/?cr=5/. The site to see our facebook site is: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=34708647457 We believe a moderate conservative option is better than this Canadian Alliance type party which has been completely dominated by their kind and red tories and blue liberals need to stand up and have their voices heard and claim the centre between the two parties. To see the story on this site check out: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/98546-centrist-party-canada-2.html Thank you and I look forward to comments about this story. Edited February 15, 2011 by ccen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) It is further enhanced by both Stephen Harper abetting and trying to cover this up, and Bev Oda's own lies to try to cover it up. "The minister was backtracking on previous statements in which she said Kairos had lost its funding because the group's work no longer fit with the Canadian International Development Agency's objectives — suggesting she was acting on her department's recommendation." CP They should both be in court, the level of deep seeded corruption is being demonstrated in that evil government. Edited February 15, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I don't see where the fraud, doctoring, forging, or fudging took place, either. Bob Rae is a lawyer, isn't he? Here's his reaction to the "law" aspect. Rae downplayed questions whether Oda may have broken the law, saying it’s more a question for Parliament to decide whether she knowingly misled MPs. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/939165--bev-oda-faces-tough-questions-after-admitting-doctored-document?bn=1 Would a lawyer downplay a perceived breech of the law, especially if a political opponent is involved? I think <not>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Scribblet posted a link in another thread but here is a direct link to the minutes from the House of Commons meeting of December 9th. Margaret Biggs is the President of CIDA - and the main signatory of the recommendation in question - and her sworn testimony is included here. After seeing this, I am disappointed that the media has allowed this to play out in the fashion that it has without highlighting Ms. Biggs' testimony......but once again, the Liberals will be left with egg on their face - making a tempest in a teapot - and disparaging poor Ms. Oda with terms like "doctored" and "forged". This will not play well with women voters. Ms. Margaret Biggs: Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department's advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that's quite normal. I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn't want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative. Link: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4871931&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3#Int-3659045 Edited February 15, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) This is yet another clear example the Harper Administration - ignoring their staff and exercising solitary decision making departmental decisions. The thing that sets this appart even further is the attempted cover up, and alteration without explanation. Why even have ministry staff to determine these things if they are wholely political reasons. This goes back to the threats made against religious organization a year ago - indicating that funding would be cut to anyone who didn't back the Harper Regimes policies. Essentially this is a tyranical wholely partisan government that is cutting funding to anyone who doesn't support their party. It is corrupt to the bone. They are not only willing to lie, but they are breaking the law to do it. That is unacceptable. He counseled people to commit an offence. This is intolerable. And then you totally baseless advocates of the party are only spitting further on the institution of rule of law and good governance. You people disgust me. Edited February 15, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This is further proof that the Conservatives are being dictated everything by the PMO and Stephen Harper's government. He wants to make sure nothing can go wrong right now but when things start to get bad with his government he will take action and it will seem like he has everything under control. The current Conservatives are a very corrupt bunch. This is why we need a centre to centre-right party resembling the old Progressive Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This is further proof that the Conservatives are being dictated everything by the PMO and Stephen Harper's government. He wants to make sure nothing can go wrong right now but when things start to get bad with his government he will take action and it will seem like he has everything under control. The current Conservatives are a very corrupt bunch. This is why we need a centre to centre-right party resembling the old Progressive Conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This is yet another clear example the Harper Administration - ignoring their staff and exercising solitary decision making departmental decisions. The thing that sets this appart even further is the attempted cover up, and alteration without explanation. Oh wah wah....and even if all true, it still isnt fraud. Dont ever become a lawyer, you'll be eating beans from a tin til death. It is corrupt to the bone. They are not only willing to lie, but they are breaking the law to do it. That is unacceptable. Except in all your posts, you cannot, not even one iota of an attempt, shown anyone what was fradulent. Put up of shut up. Its easy. He counseled people to commit an offence. This is intolerable. He Wm Ashley, I need that report on my desk by 5, please indicate if you want to fund them or not. Ive heard your underlings think we should but make a note on the file and send it to me. And as a good boy you do, with a big "NOT" on it. That is your, and Oda's prerogative. But it aint fraud. And then you totally baseless advocates of the party are only spitting further on the institution of rule of law and good governance. You people disgust me. No no.... ...whats disgusting is being a weasal about fraud and stamping your feet like a petulant child because no one else, and I mean no one else, can see or even attempt to see fraud. Talk about partisan BS. Go ahead, post the actions that are fraudulent along with the applicable law pertaining and we will see. But if not, log out, its embarassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This is further proof blah blah blha.......old Progressive Conservatives. We heard the exact same post in the other thread. Repeat it twice........it must be true ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I would be embarrassed to defend this behavior on any level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 We heard the exact same post in the other thread. Repeat it twice........it must be true ! Stop the insulting of people's post. People deserve to be treated with respect and the same goes and I thought people are genuinely good mentality is wrong but the truth is the Conservatives are making parliament a laughing stock and want to make sure voter intention gets to the point where no one will vote on the left and they have a committed group of people who could care less what happens to our democracy. That is the truth and I am repeating multiple times because the truth must be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Well not to insult your intelligence but altering a document is pretty much that. You not knowing that invalidates any position you have. Perhaps it is senile dementia. I'm sure G Bambino doesn't know what this post means either. Did you think the lack of an argument on your part would be hidden by the personal attacks? Making a hand-written scribble on a letter is not doctoring, forging, or fudging a document. [c/e] Edited February 15, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I would be embarrassed to defend this behavior on any level. We need to ensure that for our democracy to be strong we have to have our elected officials behaving a certain way and there needs to be a certain standard for them to follow so they can be an example for us all. Anyone agree with me? The Conservatives have failed on all levels just like the Liberals. We need a new party to step forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I would be embarrassed to defend this behavior on any level. True MH. But at least we should deal with it in a honest manner, and frankly the china and furniture gallery guy is being anything but. Sure, Oda lied through her teeth and should pay for that faux pas, but it is hardly criminal....wait a sec, it isnt criminal in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This is yet another clear example the Harper Administration - ignoring their staff and exercising solitary decision making departmental decisions. Evidently you believe we should have something other than responsible government. 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.