William Ashley Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/appeals-court-shreds-tory-defence-in-campaign-finance-case/article1925509/ So it seems elections Canada is now the victor in the campaign financing case that the Conservatives previously claimed to exhonerate them. This as the new charges of illegality have come through on 4 individuals (2 sentators) and the party. What 67 candidates could be found ineligible to run again? Anyone have the list? Edited March 1, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/appeals-court-shreds-tory-defence-in-campaign-finance-case/article1925509/ So it seems elections Canada is now the victor in the campaign financing case that the Conservatives previously claimed to exhonerate them. This as the new charges of illegality have come through on 4 individuals (2 sentators) and the party. Clearly it's all those Liberal judges. There's no way that the Conservative Party, the party of Jesus, for God's sake, could ever dream of doing anything wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Can't wait to read the ruling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 What more is there to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I think I found the list here in the following and today, Harper said they have CHANGED their ways, so he just admit guilt. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/elections-canada-charges-four-senior-conservative-officials-20110224-201435-903.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Clearly it's all those Liberal judges. There's no way that the Conservative Party, the party of Jesus, for God's sake, could ever dream of doing anything wrong! What does Jesus have to do with this?----- This "scandal/issue" has the potential to pose a problem for the Conservatives but I don't think it will. First, it is too convoluted and concerns something that happened five years ago. Second, it is a "he said; she said" type issue. There is no clear moral issue. The Tories are right to say that it is an administrative dispute. (IMHO, the Conservatives pushed the envelope in 2006 but I don't think they did anything wrong and certainly nothing immoral.) With that said, it's obvious that the next federal election will be a World War I, trench war, fight to the death. The anglo elite of Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal, the senior bureaucrats, the litterati, loath Harper and his ilk. They want him and his gang out of power. So ultimately, this question will be decided in the court of public opinion. The Tories have firmly about 30% of the voting public on their side. The more the Ottawa federal bureaucracy attacks Harper, the higher that percentage will rise. PS. Why is no one talking about Bev Oda now? Edited March 2, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Great post August Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Was Bev one of the cheaters in the 2006 election that illegitimately gave the Conservatives government in their "mandate"' won by fraudulent electoral practices? Yeah let the cheaters run the government and administer the law---- nothing like crooks to set people straight. With the bad guys in charge only the good people need to worry - how many of those are there in Canada? No brainer? Evil wins again, who is the first sacraficial lamb to feed the blood to the demonspawn BigBlue part two. Maybe lucifer ain't busy, someone wanna knock I hear harper may be home? He's the devil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan Edited March 2, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Yeah let the cheaters run the government and administer the law---- William, no one has the moral high ground in this particular argument.Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, Mao Tse Tong, Charlie Sheen and Muammur Gaddhafi, for example, claimed that the sky is green. The issue/argument was clear. In this dispute between federal Conservatives and Toronto/Ottawa bureaucrats who hate Harper, they are arguing about shades of blue. The issue is not clear, and either side is possibly right. It will ultimately be decided in the court of public opinion. Will this issue decide the next election? I don't think so. It is too convoluted, happened five years ago, and other issues matter more. Edited March 2, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (IMHO, the Conservatives pushed the envelope in 2006 but I don't think they did anything wrong and certainly nothing immoral.) I'll disagree with that. They broke the spirit of the law, and probably the word of it. They found what they thought was a loophole to move riding cash around, clearly violating the whole intent of the rules. I'm not sure what moral or immoral has to do with it, being that political parties by their very nature are horrifically immoral creatures. At the end of the day the courts will decide, but this idea that they would get away with the stunt is now done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe lucifer ain't busy, someone wanna knock I hear harper may be home? He's the devil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan BUT are lucifer and the devil the same entity? The Bible does not name the devil as Lucifer. The use of this name in reference to the devil stems from an interpretation of Isaiah 14:3-20, a passage that does not speak of any fallen angel but of the defeat of a particular Babylonian King, to whom it gives a title that refers to what in English is called the Day Star or Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer).[2] In 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere, the same Latin word lucifer is used to refer to the Morning Star, with no relation to the devil. It is only in post-New Testament times that the Latin word Lucifer was often used as a name for the devil, both in religious writing and in fiction, especially when referring to him prior to his fall from Heaven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer I don't think Harper is either otherwise he would be mentioned by name in the interpretation of Nostradamus' works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 At the end of the day the courts will decide, but this idea that they would get away with the stunt is now done. Done and brought to light. Oh well, they'll appeal and provide work for high priced lawyers. One thing for sure, they won't try it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) The Conservatives never take responsibility for anything and you will see their chances of winning a majority go out the window. Now the Liberals and Conservatives will be seen as being two corrupt parties and will leave the NDP as the only party left to be considered as a positive party which can get into power. I mean the Liberals gave the Conservatives the great financial record and the Conservatives simply claimed it and said they made sure Canada was on good fiscal footing. The Conservatives party also in the past while since this issue came up has been wanting to drag down the other parties with this issue and they are the only ones who claim ownership of it and should as an honorable party lay out for all people to see what exactly went on and make sure a public inquiry happen so the truth can shed light into this affair. Finally, the undecided numbers will really get high since about 6% the people who voted for the Conservatives who switched from the Liberals before may just stay home or go to the Greens I hope! Also, this could prove to be a period when minorities continuously happen until something dramatic happens like a change in leadership for one of the two major parties or both and our voter turnout for elections will continue to go down because of this pitiful display of hiding the truth and deflecting questions and corruption from the two major parties. Thank you! Edited March 2, 2011 by ccen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 At the end of the day the courts will decide, but this idea that they would get away with the stunt is now done.There will be an appeal to the Supreme Court but the great thing about a democracy is that the people also have a say.I think the court of public opinion will ultimately decide: other things matter more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccen Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 The truth is when the Canadian Alliance wanted to merge with the PC party the Canadian Alliance went around the laws of Elections Canada and merged the two parties without the consent of the members of the PC party. I know because I talked a little while ago with people in the old PC party at the federal level and they said all people who are part of the party have to agree before you can hand the party to anyone. Therefore, the Conservatives broke the rules there and the PC party should be around today. I saw videos on this site: http://davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html on the section on the side called "Opposition to PC-CA Merger". There are videos on that section and they show what really happened and Peter MacKay going against the rules and going against the handshake and promise he made to David Orchard. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 The truth is when the Canadian Alliance wanted to merge with the PC party the Canadian Alliance went around the laws of Elections Canada and merged the two parties without the consent of the members of the PC party. I know because I talked a little while ago with people in the old PC party at the federal level and they said all people who are part of the party have to agree before you can hand the party to anyone. Therefore, the Conservatives broke the rules there and the PC party should be around today. I saw videos on this site: http://davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html on the section on the side called "Opposition to PC-CA Merger". There are videos on that section and they show what really happened and Peter MacKay going against the rules and going against the handshake and promise he made to David Orchard. Thank you! I watched that whole thing unravel when it happened. Orchard got screwed, no doubt. On the other hand, he was also a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 This decision needs to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. IMO the integrity and fairness of the electoral system is maintained by ensuring that the most popular party wins, not by "leveling the playing field" so that less popular parties are given a leg up. It also seems to have implications for the CPC moving to do away with the cash welfare the parties receive quarterly as that does not result in a 'level playing field' does it, some get way more than others. However, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled the Conservative party's interpretation “would weaken compliance with the limits set by Parliament on the amount of money that candidates may spend on their election and can recover by way of reimbursement from public funds.”“Abuses could well proliferate and the statutory objective of promoting a healthy democracy through levelling the electoral playing field [be] undermined,” the ruling says. A spokesman for the elections watchdog said “the decision preserves the integrity of the political financing regime which ensures fairness in the electoral system.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) William, no one has the moral high ground in this particular argument. Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, Mao Tse Tong, Charlie Sheen and Muammur Gaddhafi, for example, claimed that the sky is green. The issue/argument was clear. In this dispute between federal Conservatives and Toronto/Ottawa bureaucrats who hate Harper, they are arguing about shades of blue. The issue is not clear, and either side is possibly right. It will ultimately be decided in the court of public opinion. Will this issue decide the next election? I don't think so. It is too convoluted, happened five years ago, and other issues matter more. They broke the law and you are in denile. You have no position of value here because you are lying about simple facts. They broke the law - this isn't shades of blue - it is stripes of black and white or bright orange more correctly. I'm not from Ottawa or Toronto and I see it.. it doesn't take a person from one of Canada's top two administrative centers to see it. Anyone who isn't insane or brainwashed can see. Edited March 2, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 The truth is when the Canadian Alliance wanted to merge with the PC party the Canadian Alliance went around the laws of Elections Canada and merged the two parties without the consent of the members of the PC party. d Peter MacKay going against the rules and going against the handshake and promise he made to David Orchard. ------- Orchard may have been screwed over but the merge was not without a majority vote agreeing to it, there had to be a 2/3 majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) This decision needs to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. IMO the integrity and fairness of the electoral system is maintained by ensuring that the most popular party wins, not by "leveling the playing field" so that less popular parties are given a leg up. It also seems to have implications for the CPC moving to do away with the cash welfare the parties receive quarterly as that does not result in a 'level playing field' does it, some get way more than others. What constitutional challenge exists --- if the law is reduced to - I have the right to believe the law is something other than it is. This becomes incredibly inane. it is caveat's rule - nothing is illegal in Canada if you don't think it is afterall we have the right to belief - is a quagmire. They broke the law there is no constitutional challenge on this. Thus no supreme court hearing grounds. The caveat is that the elections act is "unconstitutional" (and it is) but throwing out the elections act is problematic - and I don't think that is the basis of the Conservative Party of Canada either - they broke the law, they hadn't disputed electoral law to date, doing it as an excuse isn't exactly making them any less crooks. Edited March 2, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Yeah let the cheaters run the government and administer the law---- nothing like crooks to set people straight. With the bad guys in charge only the good people need to worry - how many of those are there in Canada? No brainer? Evil wins again, who is the first sacraficial lamb to feed the blood to the demonspawn BigBlue part two. Well, on one side we have cheaters and on the other we have thieves! I still can't consider challenging the EC rules with AdScam as morally equivalent. Once again, both smell but on smells a bit less than the other. What else is new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Well, on one side we have cheaters and on the other we have thieves! I still can't consider challenging the EC rules with AdScam as morally equivalent. Once again, both smell but on smells a bit less than the other. What else is new? ADSCAM!!!!!! Keep yelling it. The difference is quite easy to figure out. One was a couple of party members ripping us off. The other is the ruling party ripping us off while grandstanding about it. Which seems worse to you really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Well, on one side we have cheaters and on the other we have thieves! I still can't consider challenging the EC rules with AdScam as morally equivalent. Once again, both smell but on smells a bit less than the other. What else is new? That was 10 years ago get over it, or don't vote liberal. Not voting conservative doesn't equate voting liberal. If you can't vote for someone don't vote or run. It only costs $4000 to run as an MP. If we complained about corruptions happening a decade or more ago we would still be talking about how the conservatives gave a sole source contract to their own stock owned railline with public tax dollars effectively embezzling public funds to private pockets. When was the last time you heard about the rail line contraversy? A lot more money went to conservative party supporting companies for Actionplan than went to liberal friendly parties for adscam meaning the 100 million liberal friendly fund (what are the chances of less than 40% of advertising firms being liberal friendly in a majority?) VS. actionplan valued at more than $50 billion - who did more here.. it is quite obvious who embezzled more of the funds.. The Conservative Party of Canada is widely known as being hugely partisan, awarding contracts, and positions where members donate to the party.... Adscam was 100 m. of 250 million to "liberal friendly advertising firms.. what was the other 150 million non liberal friendly firms? Look at where actionplan funds are going - with a more than 50billion price tag.. I can bet you more than 40% of those funds have gone to conservative interests... AND ontop of this more than 50% went to conservative ridings.. NAME__________________CHEST(contraversial)_______________________%TOPARTYINTERESTS SPONSERSHIP__________250 Million(100million)______________________40%(LIBERAL) ACTIONSCAM__________50000 Million (25000million+)__________________50+%(CONSERVATIVE) who is the bigger crook? Oh and no you can't say the conservatives arn't claiming to be "winning" the contracts for their people... How is it they are winning them, if they arn't rigging it up? Our bridge won't be finished in time so we are going to extend the period.... Partisan interest much? The main issue with the party is how decrepitly partisan they are. They arn't for Canadians they are a scheme for a circle of people that is CULT oriented toward a single philosophy NOT Canadian values. They don't represent the Status Quo, they don't follow the law, and they are financially irresponsible. I don't see why Canadians would want that for their government - changing the law is one thing, breaking their own is another. And they have done that. Don't make it if you gonna break it. Building that sort of legal muscle isn't in Canadians interests. They should be in the grave where they belong. By that I mean the criminal underworld their ethics and practices similize. Edited March 2, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 The truth is when the Canadian Alliance wanted to merge with the PC party the Canadian Alliance went around the laws of Elections Canada and merged the two parties without the consent of the members of the PC party. I know because I talked a little while ago with people in the old PC party at the federal level and they said all people who are part of the party have to agree before you can hand the party to anyone. Therefore, the Conservatives broke the rules there and the PC party should be around today. I saw videos on this site: http://davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html on the section on the side called "Opposition to PC-CA Merger". There are videos on that section and they show what really happened and Peter MacKay going against the rules and going against the handshake and promise he made to David Orchard. Thank you! You are telling only selective bits of the story. As another poster has already said, there was still a better than 2/3 majority of the PC membership who agreed with the merger. That means that Mr. Orchard had nowhere near majority support within his party! You should also consider the reasons behind that situation. The biggest one was that the PCs were heading for extinction! They were fading away to a shadow, with absolutely no signs of being able to mount a comeback. Certainly NOT with David Orchard! He was only well-known within his own party. Most of the Canadian electorate had never heard of him! The PCs had only a handful of seats that was slowly eroding every election. They had almost no money and no supporters to give donations. They had a choice between merging with the Alliance or sinking beneath the waves while Captain David Orchard ranted and roared at the masthead. I am now convinced that you must be very young and naive. That's no crime, of course. Still, no one who was alive and old enough to consider what happened during those days could possibly have taken your viewpoint. It directly contradicts what was obvious to the entire country! It's like trying to say that Trudeau-mania was just a handful of kids waving some balloons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 ADSCAM!!!!!! Keep yelling it. The difference is quite easy to figure out. One was a couple of party members ripping us off. The other is the ruling party ripping us off while grandstanding about it. Which seems worse to you really? Well, the idea that it was only a few members ripping us off is just an opinion. I can't believe it, since I don't believe a scheme as grand as AdScam could have happened without tacit support from the highest levels of the party. I believe that Chretien HAD to know! There's absolutely no way that could be easily proven, of course. The party brass would never have been so stupid as " not to wipe the tapes", a la Richard Nixon. Let's face it, they're all lawyers! They perfectly understand the concept of "plausible deniability". Without high level support, things couldn't have been hidden as long as they were. So a few low level goons took a hit for the team. Sorry, but although that may satisfy the technicalities of the law it just isn't enough for me to accept as complete, true and accurate. And your faith in the justice system is just not enough to change MY opinion! 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.