Mulcair can't pay off his mortgage

bleeding heart · May 27, 2012

Sure sure. I await your call to know all the finances of Conservative MPs in the house. Right now those are the guys who need to be competent money managers. I don't remember one Con on this board asking for this over the last 5 years. Geeeeee...I...wonder why?

Get with the program. We're not talking about the ruling Party, we're talking about the potential ruling Party. Much more important to know the personal financial details.

madmax · May 27, 2012

How about he lost a 100,000 dollar law suit plus his and the other guys legal fees for daring to say something that was right but could not be proven? How about that?

If its not Proven, its not right... its unproven... and he got burned.

punked · May 27, 2012

If its not Proven, its not right... its unproven... and he got burned.

He sure did. Apparently he thought something to be true and went out and said it. He took the consequences which lead to his high mortgage but the jury to be honest is still out on if his accusations are right or not. Sometimes though you have to speak the truth you know even though there will be high consequences.

TimG · May 27, 2012

He took the consequences which lead to his high mortgage but the jury to be honest is still out on if his accusations are right or not. Sometimes though you have to speak the truth you know even though there will be high consequences.

What a pathetic comment. We have no way to know if it is truth or not. Muclair may have smeared an innocent person and you are defending it as an 'act of integrity'? Nonsense. A person with integrity would have acknowledged that the evidence did not exist and apologized but he 'stuck to his guns'. It does not say much good about him. Sticking to your principals is not admirable if you are harming innocent people. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

punked · May 27, 2012

What a pathetic comment. We have no way to know if it is truth or not. Muclair may have smeared an innocent person and you are defending it as an 'act of integrity'? Nonsense. A person with integrity would have acknowledged that the evidence did not exist and apologized but he 'stuck to his guns'. It does not say much good about him.

Maybe although Muclair's insistence of never backing down in Quebec did bring out an investigation of another Minster in the PQ government Gilles Baril for guess what? Influence peddling. If you actually look into the story Muclair looks to be more guilty of being in opposition so no investigation of the crimes could be done.

dre · May 27, 2012

What a pathetic comment. We have no way to know if it is truth or not. Muclair may have smeared an innocent person and you are defending it as an 'act of integrity'? Nonsense. A person with integrity would have acknowledged that the evidence did not exist and apologized but he 'stuck to his guns'. It does not say much good about him. Sticking to your principals is not admirable if you are harming innocent people.

:lol: Talk about pathetic comments! The loser of a court case should simply predict the outcome ahead of time, and not bother. One has to wonder what planet you even live on. This is the entire purpose of civil courts... In Timmy World I guess there would never ever be civil cases because the party destined to lose would just magically predict the future, and not bother with the case :lol:

TimG · May 27, 2012

Maybe although Muclair's insistence of never backing down in Quebec did bring out an investigation of another Minster in the PQ government Gilles Baril for guess what? Influence peddling.

He could have done that without smearing a potentially innocent person. His actions are not defensible simply because other people have been found guilty. The fact that there has been an investigation and nothing has implicated the person that Muclair smeared suggests that he may have accuse the wrong person even if he was right about the problem. That is not acceptable. He did not need to make it personal and he deserved what he got.

punked · May 27, 2012

He could have done that without smearing a potentially innocent person. His actions are not defensible simply because other people have been found guilty. The fact that there has been an investigation and nothing has implicated the person that Muclair smeared suggests that he may have accuse the wrong person even if he was right about the problem. That is not acceptable. He did not need to make it personal and he deserved what he got.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. There was no investigation into Yves Duhaime. Want to know why? He was no longer in government and his buddy who he bragged about "have connection to" was the the guy in charge of the province who would have given the go on an investigation. Again Muclair's "crime" daring to speak outside the legislature and being in opposition at the time. He made these accusations day in and day in the legislature which brought down one minister who was influence puddling however the other guy was out and a lobbyist at the time and Muclair dared say what he was saying (and which was proven at least in one case to be true) out side of where he had parliamentary privileged. This is one of those gray areas but I can see why having someone who isn't scared by "Stop telling the public about things that I did or I will sue you" would terrify a Conservative like yourself.

Again Yves Duhaime there was no investigation to this day we don't know what Muclair said about him was true or false but the courts said there wasn't enough evidence.

TimG · May 27, 2012

Again Yves Duhaime there was no investigation to this day we don't know what Muclair said about him was true or false but the courts said there wasn't enough evidence.

Haven't you heard of innocent until proven guilty? That is why defamation laws exist because people like Muclair think they can make public accusations with no evidence. This guy might be guilty but that does not excuse Muclair. Nothing stopped him with pushing the general issue of public corruption without making it personal. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

punked · May 27, 2012

Haven't you heard of innocent until proven guilty? That is why defamation laws exist because people like Muclair think they can make public accusations with no evidence. This guy might be guilty but that does not excuse Muclair. Nothing stopped him with pushing the general issue of public corruption without making it personal.

Haven't you heard of "My friend is the Premier" and that no public investigation was done after La Press ran the story. Gee I wonder why? Could it be his friend was the premier. I would love for there had been an investigation into Mr. Duhaime. It would have cleared his name we would never had to have had this argument but for some reason there wasn't.

Again I can understand why the Conservative would be scared of someone who refuses to be silences by "I will sue you".

As for innocent until proven guilty I will remember that one when I hear a Conservative scream Adscam the next time someone brings up the Liberals. Your hypocrisy is showing once again.

BTW It seems there are some accusations flying around this board about Muclair and his mortgage even though we know nothing about it and have no proof for anything. Geeee I wonder why...... :rolleyes:

Edited May 27, 2012 by punked

MiddleClassCentrist · May 27, 2012

There is a different between wanting 'average' people with average incomes in government and wanting people that can competently manage whatever income they have. You don't need to make a lot of money to be a competent manager of money.

You bring the question of competence... But don't seem demonstrate competence in understanding what being a competent financial manager means.

Has he paid his debts? Did he default on a loan? Has he committed fraud (like so many conservatives) to pay his loans?

Why don't we just look at his credit score and be done with it? The banks were willing to do this. That means that he is competent in managing his debt.

It shouldn't matter how many times one has mortgaged an abode. It really shouldn't, accessing equity is legitimate. Financial competence is primarily in being able to pay back the money you owe in a timely fashion satisfactory to the terms. That is what our credit score represents.

Seeing that the banks went through, he is obviously competent enough to pay back the money he's owed.

This is nothing more than a thinly veiled, pathetic flail from a heavily tarnished group of conservative politicians. The desperation shows greatly in how far they had to dig for a minute issue.

Edited May 27, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

MiddleClassCentrist · May 27, 2012

Talk about pathetic comments! The loser of a court case should simply predict the outcome ahead of time, and or not bother. One has to wonder what planet you even live on. This is the entire purpose of civil courts... In Timmy World I guess there would never ever be civil cases because the party destined to lose would just magically predict the future, and not bother with the case

Well, to be fair, in Corporate Conservatopia that is exactly what they want you to fear so you don't fight back.

Topaz · May 27, 2012

What does the topic have to so with the NDP as leader and how he leads? Now, we can talk about the PM and the raise he gave himself within the first two weeks of the PMO. His wages and our tax dollars has made him a millionaire if he wasn't one before now that is taxpayers business.

TimG · May 27, 2012

This is nothing more than a thinly veiled, pathetic flail from a heavily tarnished group of conservative politicians.

Actually, this is the kind of stuff that NDP always jumps on when it comes out. I don't happen to think that it is big deal because it is enjoyable to watch the NDP types flail around in hypocracy.

punked · May 27, 2012

Actually, this is the kind of stuff that NDP always jumps on when it comes out. I don't happen to think that it is big deal because it is enjoyable to watch the NDP types flail around in hypocracy.

Yah Tim the hypocrisy is coming from the NDP posters :rolleyes: Not the guy who keeps talking about innocent until proven guilty but is jumping on this story anyway.

scribblet · May 27, 2012

Whoda thunk it - it's okay to bring up personal issues when it's a conservative but oh my, don't touch the dippers. Of course it was okay to talk about Vic Toew's personal life, okay to talk about Ms. Guergis and her mortgage - remember Robert Fife - hmmm maybe he thinks the ethics commissioner should be involved in this one.

If conservatives are fair game when it comes to personal issues, then so is Mulcair.

TimG · May 27, 2012

but is jumping on this story anyway.

Hey. I was just having fun with it and backed off once someone gave me some plausible explanations for why he had the debt. The subsequent discussions over Muclair's libel problems has nothing to with his mortgage.

Canuckistani · May 27, 2012

Mulcair's personal life is fair game, same as Harper's. But what a lame attack this is - so he chooses to maintain high debt on his home. As long as he's making the payments, doesn't default, that's really up to him. If that's the worst the Reformacons have on him, he doesn't have much to worry about.

Tilter · May 27, 2012

Looks to me that altho he might not be able to manage a country he would be an excellent Finance minister in a Bob Rae government :lol: :lol: :lol:

punked · May 27, 2012

Whoda thunk it - it's okay to bring up personal issues when it's a conservative but oh my, don't touch the dippers. Of course it was okay to talk about Vic Toew's personal life, okay to talk about Ms. Guergis and her mortgage - remember Robert Fife - hmmm maybe he thinks the ethics commissioner should be involved in this one.

If conservatives are fair game when it comes to personal issues, then so is Mulcair.

Last time I checked someone lost there job over Toew's and there was a parliamentary investigation. I'll be sitting here waiting for YOU to call for the same treatment here. I am willing to bet though you are full of it right now.

scribblet · May 27, 2012

I am willing to bet though you are full of it right now.

And you are not of course LOL

MiddleClassCentrist · May 27, 2012

Whoda thunk it - it's okay to bring up personal issues when it's a conservative but oh my, don't touch the dippers. Of course it was okay to talk about Vic Toew's personal life, okay to talk about Ms. Guergis and her mortgage - remember Robert Fife - hmmm maybe he thinks the ethics commissioner should be involved in this one.

If conservatives are fair game when it comes to personal issues, then so is Mulcair.

You can search the various threads on Toew's. I said it was also inappropriate, FYI

punked · May 27, 2012

And you are not of course LOL

I await for you to call for this to get the same treatment as the whole Viki leaks thing. Still nothing eh?

BubberMiley · May 28, 2012

Be careful. She'll say you have Toews Derangement Syndrome and think she made an argument.

Claudius · May 28, 2012

Personally I don't care about this issue.

1-If Mulcair becomes PM he won't be finance minister.

2-Life would be easy if we could make decisions about an MP based solely on them but ministers don't make decisions on their own, they consult a bevy of advisers on nebulous topics like the economy (even though they make it look like they made the decision all on their own).