Behold,Justin T./liberal hypocrosy in all its glory!

[WWWTT]

He's in way over his head!

Remember those conservative attack adds?

Remember how the liberals were firing back about the footage in the add was taken from Justin donating his time at a charity fundraiser?

Well here's one to choke on,Justin isn't a cheap date.

Nor does he care much for donating for free!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/14/justin-trudeau-speaking-fees-charity_n_3443439.html

Let the conservative attack adds keep rolling!

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Indeed, and in this Globe piece it's mentioned that Mr Trudeau also preached at an event for literacy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-wont-refund-20000-speaking-fee-from-charity-fundraiser/article12573370/#dashboard/follows/

It wasn’t the only fundraiser Mr. Trudeau was under fire for. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall joined federal Conservatives in the attack, calling on Mr. Trudeau to pay back a fee paid to speak last year at a Saskatoon literacy conference.

“In my view, it is inappropriate for a public official to accept a fee to speak at such an event when he is already paid to speak on matters of public policy,” Mr. Wall said in a statement.

I wonder how many books and learning aides could have been bought with the money Mr Trudeau received at this event………Wasn’t Mr Trudeau once a teacher to boot? I thought teachers didn’t care about the money, but the children……..

The optics put Mr Trudeau in the light that he’ll pray on illiterate and elderly folks to make a buck…….for shame.

Though I can't think of many instances in which I agree with members of the NDP, quite clearly this is one:

In an interview, NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus said most MPs speak at events without a fee as part of their jobs.

“Really, straight-up, whatever happened to the notion of public service?” Mr. Angus said. “To me, it’s a staggering amount of money to take from a charity. But to do it as a public official, as a Member of Parliament, I think is unconscionable.”

[G Huxley]

This coming from the guys who just cut 360,000$ anually from UN drought and famine relief?

Edited June 16, 2013 by G Huxley

[Shady]

Unbelievable, but sadly not surprising considering the character in question. I wanna see him defend his actions during the next federal election debates. Good luck with that Justin.

[Hudson Jones]

ad

[Hudson Jones]

You guys are so empty.

It always amazes me watching people who try to put down a politician because they're on a different team and then comeback and unconditionally support another politician, despite many faults,

[Keepitsimple]

I just watched Question Period with Kevin Newman. Justin has now decided to "make it right" and he will give back some or all of the speaking fees to those charities who feel slighted. Does making it right imply that it was wrong? Regardless, it's not about giving the money back - it's about making a principled decision in the first place not to charge a speaking fee to charities. Expenses are OK but a fee is unprincipled for someone like Justin - a paid MP who is promoting himself. You're supposed to GIVE to charities - not TAKE. It's a principle that should be guided by one's inner self.

Aside: The interview with Justin went for about 10 minutes - quite a nervous fellow, perhaps because he was on the defensive.....he's got a long way to go before he'll be able to handle interviews that deal with the tough issues of leadership.

Update: To my previous point on Trudeau's interview ineptness, here's a recent clip....have a look and see how Justing freezes like a deer in headlights when asked a question about a "stunt". Put aside all the usual platitudes and he says basically nothing. Put this in contrast to Nathan Cullen who at least can string some thoughts together.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/seniors-charity-wants-justin-trudeau-return-20-000-205147187.html?vp=1

Edited June 16, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

Nothing says charity work like gettin paid! LOL.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Shady

[Guest Derek L]

I just watched Question Period with Kevin Newman. Justin has now decided to "make it right" and he will give back some or all of the speaking fees to those charities who feel slighted. Does making it right imply that it was wrong? Regardless, it's not about giving the money back - it's about making a principled decision in the first place not to charge a speaking fee to charities. Expenses are OK but a fee is unprincipled for someone like Justin - a paid MP who is promoting himself. You're supposed to GIVE to charities - not TAKE. It's a principle that should be guided by one's inner self.

Aside: The interview with Justin went for about 10 minutes - quite a nervous fellow, perhaps because he was on the defensive.....he's got a long way to go before he'll be able to handle interviews that deal with the tough issues of leadership.

Update: To my previous point on Trudeau's interview ineptness, here's a recent clip....have a look and see how Justing freezes like a deer in headlights when asked a question about a "stunt". Put aside all the usual platitudes and he says basically nothing. Put this in contrast to Nathan Cullen who at least can string some thoughts together.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/seniors-charity-wants-justin-trudeau-return-20-000-205147187.html?vp=1

And here's the CTV interview:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/justin-trudeau-to-make-it-right-with-charities-that-paid-him-to-fundraise-1.1327704

[cybercoma]

Nothing says charity work like gettin paid! LOL.

Why did they agree to pay him if they were so opposed to it? No one has answered that yet.

Edited June 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

Why did they agree to pay him if they were so opposed to it? No one has answered that yet.

Blame the victim of Trudeau's greed?

[cybercoma]

Blame the victim of Trudeau's greed?

This is just sad, Derek. Victim? They agreed to the terms of his service. Should we just rip up all contracts now? You're damn right I blame them for paying him. They signed the contract. If they were opposed to paying someone for speaking, then they should not have had him come speak and they sure as hell should not have paid him. Imagine if this was anyone else. Say a non-profit pays someone to build a database for them and agrees to pay them for that. If they went to the media and complained that they paid someone for the work that they did, do you think we would really be feigning this indignation? I highly doubt it. There was a contract and they agreed to the fees. They are entirely responsible for that. It's not like they required Trudeau to speak. It's not like he held a gun to their head and demanded the money. At the heart of this issue is whether or not service contracts need to be honoured.

Nevertheless, Trudeau shouldn't have charged them for it, especially considering his portfolio at the time. But he did. And they agreed to it. Now they're coming out with this a year later? They should have their charitable status taken away for getting involved in politics.

[Keepitsimple]

Why did they agree to pay him if they were so opposed to it? No one has answered that yet.

Pretty simple - they thought he could draw people and help raise funds. It's not whether they were opposed or not. It's a matter of Justin's principles. Most Canadians would think that taking money from Charities is - as opposed to giving - is not what they expect from their MPs - or Prime Ministers in waiting.

[cybercoma]

Pretty simple - they thought he could draw people and help raise funds. It's not whether they were opposed or not. It's a matter of Justin's principles. Most Canadians would think that taking money from Charities is - as opposed to giving - is not what they expect from their MPs - or Prime Ministers in waiting.

Most people would be wrong. And I highly doubt most people think this anyway. They know there's executive directors that get paid. They know that charities often have paid staff. Those people are "taking money from charities" as you say. Most people are also aware that charities often have legal counsel that is paid. Recently, there was an article about the 50 Worst Charities in America. The Kids Wish Network gave only 2.5% of the money it raised in direct aid. Women to Women Breast Cancer Foundation paid only 0.4% to direct aid. These numbers are awful. The problem there is entirely with the charities' management. In Trudeau's case, if the charity could not afford him to speak, then I fail to see how that's Trudeau's fault. The charity agreed to the terms. They took a gamble on how big of a draw he would be and they say they lost. I'm not sure why they would want to advertise their failure to manage their business properly, but that's exactly where the problem lies. Like I said though, screw Trudeau for charging them. If I were responsible for that charity, I would tell him to shove his speaking fees in no uncertain terms.

Edited June 16, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

This is just sad, Derek. Victim? They agreed to the terms of his service. Should we just rip up all contracts now? You're damn right I blame them for paying him. They signed the contract. If they were opposed to paying someone for speaking, then they should not have had him come speak and they sure as hell should not have paid him. Imagine if this was anyone else. Say a non-profit pays someone to build a database for them and agrees to pay them for that. If they went to the media and complained that they paid someone for the work that they did, do you think we would really be feigning this indignation? I highly doubt it. There was a contract and they agreed to the fees. They are entirely responsible for that. It's not like they required Trudeau to speak. It's not like he held a gun to their head and demanded the money. At the heart of this issue is whether or not service contracts need to be honoured.

Nevertheless, Trudeau shouldn't have charged them for it, especially considering his portfolio at the time. But he did. And they agreed to it. Now they're coming out with this a year later? They should have their charitable status taken away for getting involved in politics.

If it's not a problem, why is Justin paying them back? Well also offering to pay back other charities and "make things right"?

[cybercoma]

If it's not a problem, why is Justin paying them back? Well also offering to pay back other charities and "make things right"?

Because he's a politician.

[Guest Derek L]

Because he's a politician.

That made over 1 million dollars in a three year span preaching to charities..........

[cybercoma]

I don't see your point. Were the charities somehow forced into these agreements against their will?

[Guest Derek L]

I don't see your point. Were the charities somehow forced into these agreements against their will?

No, but borrowing from your Plumbing analogy, are seniors that get ripped off by unscrupulous contractors entering into contracts against their will? Doesn't make it morally right whether a senior is being ripped off by a plumber or a Trudeau....

[WWWTT]

This is just sad, Derek. Victim? They agreed to the terms of his service. Should we just rip up all contracts now? You're damn right I blame them for paying him. They signed the contract. If they were opposed to paying someone for speaking, then they should not have had him come speak and they sure as hell should not have paid him. Imagine if this was anyone else. Say a non-profit pays someone to build a database for them and agrees to pay them for that. If they went to the media and complained that they paid someone for the work that they did, do you think we would really be feigning this indignation? I highly doubt it. There was a contract and they agreed to the fees. They are entirely responsible for that. It's not like they required Trudeau to speak. It's not like he held a gun to their head and demanded the money. At the heart of this issue is whether or not service contracts need to be honoured.

Nevertheless, Trudeau shouldn't have charged them for it, especially considering his portfolio at the time. But he did. And they agreed to it. Now they're coming out with this a year later? They should have their charitable status taken away for getting involved in politics.

I partially agree with you on this one cyber.

But going back to my opener,the liberals were up in arms when the conservatives used footage of Justin from a charity he was at.

The liberals implied that Justin was being a selfless outstanding citizen that truly cared about the less fortunate.

And that image has been shot to hell now that its well known that Justin doesn't do "free charity".

He will now give some money because he was caught!Just like Duffy!

I bet that Justin won't be doing many charities from this point on.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Why did they agree to pay him if they were so opposed to it? No one has answered that yet.

It's obvious that if Justin was a strong draw,then the speaking engagements would have sold more tickets and made more money.

If that was the case then maybe we would still not know about this.

I am left wondering how strong of a draw Justin will be at the ballot boxes next election?

WWWTT

[Shady]

No, but borrowing from your Plumbing analogy, are seniors that get ripped off by unscrupulous contractors entering into contracts against their will? Doesn't make it morally right whether a senior is being ripped off by a plumber or a Trudeau....

Exactly. Add to that people with credit cards, or mortagages they can't afford. Then it's an issue. With Trudeau though, it's the charity's fault. No standard whatsoever. As usual.

[Shady]

I partially agree with you on this one cyber.

But going back to my opener,the liberals were up in arms when the conservatives used footage of Justin from a charity he was at.

The liberals implied that Justin was being a selfless outstanding citizen that truly cared about the less fortunate.

And that image has been shot to hell now that its well known that Justin doesn't do "free charity".

He will now give some money because he was caught!Just like Duffy!

I bet that Justin won't be doing many charities from this point on.

WWWTT

Exactly. The problem for Justin, is that charity work by definition involves donating time or money. It doesn't involved gettin paid. If you're gettin paid, it ain't charity work, it's just work.

[cybercoma]

No, but borrowing from your Plumbing analogy, are seniors that get ripped off by unscrupulous contractors entering into contracts against their will? Doesn't make it morally right whether a senior is being ripped off by a plumber or a Trudeau....

That is just about the worst analogy I've seen on this forum ever.

[cybercoma]

He will now give some money because he was caught!Just like Duffy!

WWWTT

Just like Duffy? You know, I find this kind of hyperbole to be counterproductive. As a sitting MP he shouldn't have charged for a speaking engagement. I'm glad he's paying the money back, but you're right, he's only doing it because of the bad optics and being caught. This situation is nothing like Mike Duffy's however.