Conseravtives Shocked and Awed?

[CAGERATTLER]

All this ranting by the media and all the CON servative supporters makes me laugh!

This is the way the government has done business for years!

SCENERIO:::: Company donates to party in power! Company gets government contract in return.

HELLO!!!

This sort of stuff has been going on for years. So why in hell is everybody so shocked!!! This is unbelievable!!!

Here take a look at what goes on in the states:::

Study: Bush backers land Iraq deals

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

THE STUDY of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president’s 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years.

But is all this money-raising a truly transparent and benign endeavour? Critics point to enormous loopholes in Canada's election laws that allow money to be donated to parties secretly. Foreign-owned Canadian-based companies can also make contributions - raising fears that they are garnering political leverage. And many feel corporate donors are only generous because they want tax breaks, subsidies, government contracts and friendly policies. Meanwhile, fundraising scandals and the perception of improprieties persist.

[Redneck Yokel]

Stop with the "CON servative" thing. It's immature and it's getting pretty damn annoying. I bet if you and the kindergarten children around your neighbourhood tried real hard you might be able to come up with something even wittier.

__

That aside...

HELLO!!!

This sort of stuff has been going on for years. So why in hell is everybody so shocked!!! This is unbelievable!!!

Here take a look at what goes on in the states:::

Study: Bush backers land Iraq deals

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday.

THE STUDY of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president’s 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years

You are absolutely right. So long as the U.S. is doing it, it's all good. Great argument.

[kimmy]

Hey, if it happens in the states, then let the good times roll!

At least Cagerattler has managed to concede that this is a cash-for-favours scam. That's progress, I suppose, but it's only part of the accusations against the Liberals.

The stuff the Liberals are accused of happens all the time in the US too, or at least I gather as much from what I've seen on "The Sopranos". Except that rather than sending Furio in with a blow-torch and a pair of pliers to deal with businessmen who wouldn't "donate" to the Family, it sounds like Alfonso merely sent Tony in to warn that their contracts could get cancelled if they didn't "donate".

-kimmy tightlips

[Slavik44]

cagerattler that is all based on hearsay, none of it is true, that CONservative media is getting to you.

[BQSupporter]

This is quite funny. These same Liberals that love to bash Americans and their form of government are now pointing to the states to try to justify the Liberal theft of the public teasury.

The Liberals are desparate. Once an election is called we are going to wipe them off the face of the map in Quebec regulated only to the hand full of anglophone ridings of western montreal were they belong.

[CAGERATTLER]

Different story when a CON servative takes donations.

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/media-2...r-20040513.html

The Halifax Herald Limited , Thursday, May 13, 2004

MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper

No conflict, party leader says

by Stephen Maher

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper says he knows who paid off Peter MacKay's debt from the Progressive Conservative leadership campaign and he doesn't believe Mr. MacKay is in a conflict of interest.

Mr. MacKay, the Tory MP for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, told this newspaper's editorial board in December that he had decided not to run for the leadership of the new, merged Conservative party, partly because he had personal debts of nearly $500,000 left over from his successful bid for the leadership of the old PC party last May.

Mr. MacKay said last week in Ottawa that family and friends helped him pay off the debt but that it was never as big as had been reported. But he wouldn't reveal who gave him money, or how much.

Democracy Watch, a group that pushes for greater openness in politics, said last week that Mr. MacKay should reveal who gave him the money.

"He will have no leg to stand on, if he is an MP after the election, to criticize the Liberals for hiding anything," said Duff Conacher, the group's co-ordinator.

"The public has a right to know what goes in and out of MPs' bank accounts in terms of gifts and donations."

During question period on Tuesday, Treasury Board president Reg Alcock took Mr. MacKay to task for keeping the names of the donors secret.

"I would ask the member why is he so afraid to share with Canadians who financed his leadership campaign?" Mr. Alcock said when Mr. MacKay asked a question about the sponsorship scandal.

In Ottawa on Wednesday, Mr. MacKay said he followed all the rules.

Reasonable or not, Mr. MacKay would be required to reveal all such gifts and donations if MPs vote to adopt the draft of a new ethics code requiring all MPs to disclose any gifts.

NDP MP Alexa McDonough said Mr. MacKay is being hypocritical.

"Under the new legislation, what he's doing would be completely illegal," she said Wednesday. "So I guess his ethical standard is: Do what you can get away with for as long as you can get away with it, and in the end, if the law requires it, just be glad you got away with it before you had to divulge the information."

People should not accept this kind of secrecy from an MP, she said.

"I just can't conceive of how he could think the public would be accepting of the explanation that it was only a few family and friends that paid off $500,000, and by the way, it wasn't that much after all, even though I told the public it was, and in the end it's nobody's damn business."

Some of Mr. MacKay's former Progressive Conservative colleagues are suspicious about the donations.

Mr. MacKay won the PC leadership race after signing a deal with leadership rival David Orchard promising to keep the party from merging with the Canadian Alliance. Mr. MacKay later broke that deal and negotiated a merger of the two parties.

Mr. Stevens said large cash donations can influence a politician.

"I would think that he was essentially backed by the money element in our party, the Bay Street people," he said Wednesday.

"And what kind of surprises me is that they wouldn't have funded him right up front. But that may have been part of their lever. Once you've got your man going and he gets in debt, I'm not saying he'll go black if he wants to go white, but it's sure a big influence, eh."

Mr. Stevens, who was forced to resign as a cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney's PC government in a conflict of interest scandal, said that in his experience money usually comes with strings attached.

"For people to raise substantial money like that for your own personal account is something that I don't think you should normally do," he said. "Because people as a rule don't part with money without some consideration in mind."

The scandal that brought down Mr. Stevens involved Magna, the giant auto parts company controlled by Belinda Stronach's father Frank. Magna gave a $2.6-million loan to Mr. Stevens' family business at the same time the company was earning millions from government contracts.

Magna gave $100,000 to Mr. MacKay's leadership campaign, which has led to speculation that the company may have helped Mr. MacKay with his debt after the race. Both Mr. MacKay and Ms. Stronach say that's not the case.

[CAGERATTLER]

Listen up folks THESE are the same people who ranted on about the government giving Bombardier money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad for the Liberals to do it goes un-noticed when the Conservatives do it!!!

Get a load of this:

Bombardier acquired Canadair for just $120-million, while Ottawa assumed nearly $1.2-billion in debt.

THAT'S $1.2 BILLION!!!!!!!! A Conservative government ASSUMED $1.2 BILLION of Canadair's debt!!!!

Can you say tax payers screwed again??

WOW!!!!

[Argus]

Different story when a CON servative takes donations.

Yup. It's a different story when the money isn't stolen from the taxpayers.

Maybe if you and your party weren't so unpleasant you could get people to donate out of an actual desire to have you in government, rather than through blackmail and kickbacks.

[PocketRocket]

Stop with the "CON servative" thing. It's immature and it's getting pretty damn annoying. I bet if you and the kindergarten children around your neighbourhood tried real hard you might be able to come up with something even wittier.

In interest of fair play, and considering that I repeatedly rebuked someone else for using terms like "Fiberal" and "Pinko" and "Pinnochio Club" etc etc, I have to say that I agree.

CAGE, you don't need to shovel out this kind of crap. All that name-calling does is take away from the legitimate points you are making.

That being said, good couple posts here.

I was unaware of the MacKay thing, but I'm not at all surprised to read about it.

I've said all along that the majority of politicians are crooked, and will do whatever they feel they can get away with, regardless of party affiliation.

The $1.2Billion dept assumption is also new on me.

Both these examples kind of put the shoe on the other foot vis-a-vis Gomery and Bombardier.

My favorite part of the article is....

Stephen Harper says he knows who paid off Peter MacKay's debt ....and he doesn't believe Mr. MacKay is in a conflict of interest.

But Harper won't tell us who paid it either, and yet we're supposed to take HIS word for it that it's all on the up-and-up.

To me, this makes both of them hypocrites every time they open their mouths about the sponsorship scandal.

Until they give full disclosure, that hypocrisy remains.

[Bro]

Since 1867,as far as I know,no party has ever collected funds for their party by having ficticious employee salaries rerouted to party funds.

This is fraud, plain and simple.