Jack Weber Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 It does not necessarily need to be greater then or equal to any other potential crimes. If both are true, then they are not equal BUT that would not make one bit of difference as both are illegal and thus are wrong. Yes...Both are definately outside the law... One seems to be an internal mishap that broke election financing laws...The other seems to be an attempt to usurp democracy in this country AND foist a potentially illegitimate government on the populous of this country. Equal in scale??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 The sheer lack of transparency is appalling for a Harper Conservative party that campaigned on accountability/transparency... speaking of: Harper refuses to explain why Tory MPs rejected Elections Canada finance request Prime Minister Harper is refusing to explain why Conservative M-P's rejected a request by Elections Canada for more power to verify campaign financial returns. His evasions yesterday in the House of Commons were held up by Opposition M-P's as evidence the Conservatives have something to hide in the growing investigation of bogus election-day robocalls. Elections Canada doesn't have the power to demand that political parties provide documentary evidence to back up their financial reports after each campaign. And when the elections commissioner requested that he be given the same powers as his provincial counterparts, the governing majority on the procedure and House affairs committee balked. The committee report, released last week, is being used by Opposition M-P's to demand greater transparency from the Harper government amid growing allegations of electoral fraud. uhhh, about that transparency! Hey Fletch... what's Harper afraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 is appalling for a Harper Conservative party that campaigned on accountability/transparency... speaking of: Harper refuses to explain why Tory MPs rejected Elections Canada finance request uhhh, about that transparency! Hey Fletch... what's Harper afraid of? HOW DARE YOU MOCK THE DEAR LEADER!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Yes...Both are definately outside the law... One seems to be an internal mishap that broke election financing laws...The other seems to be an attempt to usurp democracy in this country AND foist a potentially illegitimate government on the populous of this country. Equal in scale??? If both are true, then they both are illegal thats all, I have no intention to deceive myself that they could ever possibly be equal in any other way except that they both would be illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I DID know that! Do you know how Mulcair got his spot after jumpin from the libs??? Its a moot point... The point is that the NDP, the perveyors of good deeds and fair dust have been caught.... 2 times.... Only one more time than the Tories... But Felcher, are you forgetting all the other times the Tories got caught for spending too much? Here's just one. Everyone forgot about that because it's not nearly as bad as the real contempt for democracy the CPC showed in the last election with the robocall scandal. Your attempt to distract from that issue shows your level of discomfort when your beloved CPC acts illegally. You shouldn't let your vile hatred of Layton and the NDP make you look foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 2 internal mishaps simple means complete incompetance! No? They just learnin??? Yes...Both are definately outside the law... One seems to be an internal mishap that broke election financing laws...The other seems to be an attempt to usurp democracy in this country AND foist a potentially illegitimate government on the populous of this country. Equal in scale??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) 2 internal mishaps simple means complete incompetance! No? They just learnin??? So you're saying Toews broke election finance laws on purpose or because he was incompetent? Again, I have trouble understanding your crippled English. Edited June 7, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 First off,the NDP are guilty of a law created by and passed by the liberals I believe. Parliament can at any time change this law. If parliament passed a law making it illegal for government to run a deficit guess who would be guilty red handed??? At many union meetings I am at,many members are unaware that it is not against the law for our union to contribute provincially(but there are limits and various rules) but is against the law to contribute federally. Different laws for different levels of government can make it very confusing. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 First off,the NDP are guilty of a law created by and passed by the liberals I believe. Parliament can at any time change this law. If parliament passed a law making it illegal for government to run a deficit guess who would be guilty red handed??? WWWTT Who would be caught red handed? If parliament passed such a law, I can see the government quickly cutting social programs to get a surplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 My understanding is the NDP thought they had a safe loophole in the rules and so they used it BUT now they know its not a loophole and they can't use it and so all monies have to be paid back. Simple and now we have three parties of having to deal with EC. Now what about the $21,000 over spending of Del Matros in 2008? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Sooooo your saying change or amend a law when it fits the NDP's behavior? Okay, now I get it.... Kinda figured you attended union meetings... What laws like theft and harrasment, sexual or other have you managed to get changed or "fitted" to suit your brotheren? Laws are laws... We don't change them cuz it makes the guilty "un-guilty". Or, maybe it's just "confusing". First off,the NDP are guilty of a law created by and passed by the liberals I believe. Parliament can at any time change this law. If parliament passed a law making it illegal for government to run a deficit guess who would be guilty red handed??? At many union meetings I am at,many members are unaware that it is not against the law for our union to contribute provincially(but there are limits and various rules) but is against the law to contribute federally. Different laws for different levels of government can make it very confusing. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ignorance to the law is not an excuse.... Have you ever met a policeman before? So now it's "ignorance?". Ahhhhhhhhh. I get it now. My understanding is the NDP thought they had a safe loophole in the rules and so they used it BUT now they know its not a loophole and they can't use it and so all monies have to be paid back. Simple and now we have three parties of having to deal with EC. Now what about the $21,000 over spending of Del Matros in 2008? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Seems the NDP are confused. Not really "getting it" when it comes to the written law or finance... I could forego the first offense but 2 times? On the same charge? Kinda signals either blatant disregard to the law and democracy or sheer stupidity. There is no in between. Pick one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I was gonna reply to your post but calling me names just seems too immature to reply to. Typical lefty tactics... Smoke and mirrors with a dash of insults.... Typical But Felcher, are you forgetting all the other times the Tories got caught for spending too much? Here's just one. Everyone forgot about that because it's not nearly as bad as the real contempt for democracy the CPC showed in the last election with the robocall scandal. Your attempt to distract from that issue shows your level of discomfort when your beloved CPC acts illegally. You shouldn't let your vile hatred of Layton and the NDP make you look foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I was gonna reply to your post but calling me names just seems too immature to reply to. Typical lefty tactics... Smoke and mirrors with a dash of insults.... Typical A good elections canada ruling. I hope they continue and enforce the corporate side of donations when conventions are held. I see many federal fund raisers with corporate funding $1100 dollar a plate dinners. Its nice, they invite students to eat and hobknob. I don't consider this to be in the same vein as the in and out scheme. One is purposeful deception with intent to defraud the public of monies and fill federal coffers. The other is to sort out what is and isn't allowable. I believe this should become interesting as corporations and unions usually fund the brochures buy buying and "add" which is essentially a donation. This is common practice at conventions. Theres always a strong corporate prescence no matter which party. They often buy booths and promote their companies, some even show up to say they are hiring. I don't think this is going to change the nature of politics or the outcome in any election. and Yes, I think I miss Mr. Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I was gonna reply to your post but calling me names just seems too immature to reply to. So you didn't realize that Toews broke the same laws because he was impregnating his babysitter at the same time and that got more attention? Since I can't imagine any "Flech" being so sensitive to be offended by being called "Flecher," I assume you don't want to respond to that because you realize how hypocritical you're being. Edited June 7, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Seems the NDP are confused. Not really "getting it" when it comes to the written law or finance... I could forego the first offense but 2 times? On the same charge? Kinda signals either blatant disregard to the law and democracy or sheer stupidity. There is no in between. Pick one! hey Fletch... is this your +2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 To be clear here, what the NDP did was wrong. However, let's put into perspective what the problem is. Federal parties are allowed to sell advertising at their conventions. The advertising must be sold for 'fair market value,' otherwise it's an illegal contribution. Now, I don't know how much money was sponsored during the conventions, but the only illegal portion is that which is in excess of 'fair market value' for the advertising. For example, Union X buys advertising at the convention for $10,000. Fair market value for the number of people at the convention is $6000 for that kind of advertising exposure. Therefore, the illegal contribution is $4000 and the NDP will have to pay that back. The complication with the NDP comes from its provincial and federal parties being one and the same. The provincial arms' conventions may have different rules about this than the federal arm. It creates a good bit of confusion in what is allowed and what isn't. Nevertheless, I don't want to see unions, corporations, or any other third-parties making sizeable donations to political parties and politicians in any way whatsoever. Selling $40 dinners for $1100 or $6000 advertising for $10000 subverts the intent of the laws pertaining to political donations. If this is a regular thing, then it needs to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 One other thing, this is a completely separate issue from the 'In-and-Out' scheme or Dean Del Mastro making an undeclared political contribution to his campaign of $21,000. They shouldn't even be spoken of in the same post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Ignorance to the law is not an excuse.... Have you ever met a policeman before? So now it's "ignorance?". Ahhhhhhhhh. I get it now. You seem to have a real probblem with this and that's good, so how about across the Alliance/Tory line and become a judge against all their wrong doings since 2006 and I'll even let you get some sleep and finish the list the next day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nittanylionstorm07 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Reading Fletch's posts is like reading all of the failed points the Cons are going to bring up against the NDP in their 2015 Election Playbook. Feel free to keep doing it, though. The NDP will just soar north of 40%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Reading Fletch's posts is like reading all of the failed points the Cons are going to bring up against the NDP in their 2015 Election Playbook. Feel free to keep doing it, though. The NDP will just soar north of 40%. The same NDP that would not even mention the anniversery of D-DAY while the libs did and harper ,who was very busy in meeting with world leaders and the queen herself, even found the time to make sure it was not forgotten. People will be so sick of the NDP come next election, they will be back where they belong, with thier 12%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thoughtpolice Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Reading Fletch's posts is like reading all of the failed points the Cons are going to bring up against the NDP in their 2015 Election Playbook. Feel free to keep doing it, though. The NDP will just soar north of 40%. Unfortunately for the NDP, they need to soar North of 49. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 The NDP would only have commented on the lives lost in the War(s) and the sacrifices taken if... The Canadian Military was Unionized... I Find that the complete lack of silence from Mulcair is sickening... Then again, the military fought for Democracy.. The NDP is trying to destroy it.. The same NDP that would not even mention the anniversery of D-DAY while the libs did and harper ,who was very busy in meeting with world leaders and the queen herself, even found the time to make sure it was not forgotten. People will be so sick of the NDP come next election, they will be back where they belong, with thier 12%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Then again, the military fought for Democracy.. The NDP is trying to destroy it.. Once again, you're confused (maybe you can blame your Blackberry again). It was the Conservatives behind the robocalls scandal to subvert democracy. 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.