Who is best to be the next PM of Canada?

[kimmy]

And still, no evidence. 

We're not a jury, we're voters. The standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply in this situation. The standard is simply "do I believe what he's saying?" Given the strength of Martin's support in the party, the length of time, the prominence of those accused of wrongdoing, the sums of money which apparently just appeared in party coffers... there might not be enough to convict him, but there's certainly enough to give people pause. I personally suspect that if was ignorant of the details, it's because he chose to be. Then there's Warren Kinsella's recent comments...

-k

[August1991]

To me, this passage simply reinforces your prejudice. Your criterion for honesty is leaving the Liberal party. A modern-day Robespierre, you'd send every Liberal to the guillotine.

No, my criterion is that all three resigned on principle, walking away into a very uncertain future at the time. But a quick examination of their careers will provide other evidence. My point is not to hold these three up as icons - I merely want to say that honest politicians exist.

And still, no evidence.

The Claude Boulay letter, and the Kinsella Earnscliffe memos are paper evidence. But if Nixon had never taped his conversations, he would have completed his second term and his political bio would include at most a reference to some scandal.

As to PM PM, the best evidence is his alacrity in changing his budget to accommodate Layton. Drop the corporate tax cuts and add this weird NDP shopping list. He could have done all this a few months ago. Why suddenly now?

[Guest eureka]

Those are not evidence of anything until the inquiry makes some judgement on them. They are a part of the insinuations that are being used in the attempted railroading until then and until it is seen whether there is a refutation.

There is nothing weird about the NDP "Shopping List." It is all part of the NDP policy, and a very welcome part. Minority governments make deals. That is what they are about. The budget as originally presented was a deal with the Conservatives and included measures to placate Harper.

The "Conservatives" have reneged on the deal: therefore, a new "coalition" is necessary in order to carry on the business of government. It is a vastly improved deal for the people, in my opinion, and the one good thing to come from the whole sorry affair.

Let's see how much mileage the Harperites can make from it an election campaign. I suspect it will be in reverse.

Kimmy, your standard applies only to the uninformed and those too lazy to consider the merits. In Civil Law, it is a "preponderance of evidence" that is the standard. I would suggest that should be the standard for any who purport to be politically savvy or involved.

The evidence is not in.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And still, no evidence.

The Claude Boulay letter, and the Kinsella Earnscliffe memos are paper evidence. But if Nixon had never taped his conversations, he would have completed his second term and his political bio would include at most a reference to some scandal.

As to PM PM, the best evidence is his alacrity in changing his budget to accommodate Layton. Drop the corporate tax cuts and add this weird NDP shopping list. He could have done all this a few months ago. Why suddenly now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What exactly do you think the Boulay letter is evidence of? Also, please remind me what the Earnscliff memo said, I've forgotten?

As to the budget, I don't see how changing it proves any corruption whatsoever. It proves the NDP had the leverage to make it happen. It proves it's a minority government. It proves politics involves politics.

[cybercoma]

Those are not evidence of anything until the inquiry makes some judgement on them. They are a part of the insinuations that are being used in the attempted railroading until then and until it is seen whether there is a refutation.

There is nothing weird about the NDP "Shopping List." It is all part of the NDP policy, and a very welcome part. Minority governments make deals. That is what they are about. The budget as originally presented was a deal with the Conservatives and included measures to placate Harper.

The "Conservatives" have reneged on the deal: therefore, a new "coalition" is necessary in order to carry on the business of government. It is a vastly improved deal for the people, in my opinion, and the one good thing to come from the whole sorry affair.

Let's see how much mileage the Harperites can make from it an election campaign. I suspect it will be in reverse.

Kimmy, your standard applies only to the uninformed and those too lazy to consider the merits. In Civil Law, it is a "preponderance of evidence" that is the standard. I would suggest that should be the standard for any who purport to be politically savvy or involved.

The evidence is not in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Elections have nothing to do with a court of law.

Do I want a party up to its ears in these allegations taking my money and running this country? Whether a court of law finds them guilty or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Argus]

They have more in common than that.  Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Supposition, and biased supposition at that.

Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt.

Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply?

It is not supposition, it is ratiocination.  Surely you don't deny that the CPC stands for limiting the federal government? 

I think it is fair to say the CPC stands for smaller government. It is idiotic to say the CPC "resents the very existence of a central government in Canada" Such statements are nothing more than ludicrous hyperbole from people who have let their hate and fear overcome reason.

[The Terrible Sweal]

They have more in common than that.  Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Supposition, and biased supposition at that.

Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt.

Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply?

It's getting so we can't even expect a coherent, intelligible reply from you.

It is idiotic to say the CPC "resents the very existence of a central government in Canada"

You're just brilliant when it comes to vapid blowhardery, but not much goodwhen it comes to persuasion or proof. What (other than your aesthetic objections) is wrong with remarking on the nature of the Alliance-Tories?

[Argus]

Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt.

Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply?

It's getting so we can't even expect a coherent, intelligible reply from you.

Well, garbage in, garbage out. If you want something more than an instant and contemptuous dismissal put more effort into your posts than "all tories are evil and consort with Satan!

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt.

Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply?

It's getting so we can't even expect a coherent, intelligible reply from you.

Well, garbage in, garbage out. If you want something more than an instant and contemptuous dismissal put more effort into your posts than "all tories are evil and consort with Satan!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your reading is going of the scale on the sickening pomposity meter.