I can tolerate many things from my

[fellowtraveller]

government. Gross incompetence, gross mismanagement, patronage, general boobery and buffoonery, the Senate, trickery and numerous other ways by which our elected officials fail to serve us. All of these are not exactly tolerable, but like a distressingly large number of Canadians my expectations are so very minimal that I can and have forgiven nearly everything in the last couple of decades.

But I cannot and will not countenance, condone or forgive outright theft. Not now, not ever.

And that is what the Liberals, with Paul Martin,John Chretien and many other senior , trusted people at the heart of our nation have done. It simply does not matter if they were directly involved. If they weren't, then their collective massive incompetence is ample reason for dismissal. They took our tax money, laundered it, and gave it to themselves and their friends. It would be like a bus driver returning home with an empty fare box, and claiming they somehow did not see anybody emptying it every day , 6 inches away from him - every day for 7 years no less. Just how contemptuous is it to expect us to believe that 'nobody knows anything?'

If you vote Liberal next election, you are voting for thieves.

What Stephen Harper or Jack Layton or Brian Mulroney might do is not relevant, because it has not happened yet, it is speculation. But what the Liberals have done is not.

[last_niceguy]

Hear, hear!

[cybercoma]

government.  Gross incompetence, gross mismanagement, patronage, general boobery and buffoonery, the Senate, trickery and numerous other ways by which our elected officials fail to serve us.  All of these are not exactly tolerable, but like a distressingly large number of Canadians my expectations are so very minimal that I can and have forgiven nearly everything in the last couple of decades.

But I cannot and will not countenance, condone or forgive  outright theft.  Not now, not ever.

And that is what the Liberals, with Paul Martin,John Chretien and many other senior , trusted people at the heart of our nation have done.  It simply does not matter if they were directly involved.  If they weren't, then their collective massive incompetence is ample reason for dismissal.  They took our tax money, laundered it, and gave it to themselves and their friends.  It would be like a bus driver returning home with an empty fare box, and claiming they somehow did not see anybody emptying it every day , 6 inches away from him - every day for 7 years no less.  Just how contemptuous is it to expect us to believe that 'nobody knows anything?'

If you vote Liberal next election, you are voting for thieves. 

What Stephen Harper or Jack Layton or Brian Mulroney might do is not relevant, because it has not happened yet, it is speculation.  But what the Liberals have done is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Truer words have yet to be spoken. If the members of the party must follow party lines, then they collectively need to take responsibility for the party's actions.

[Army Guy]

Why is it that we the canadian tax payer have such low expectations when it comes to our goverment ?

Do we the same people have the same expectations from our leaders at work ...in our place of employment. or for that matter from any postion that serves this country...I do not understand why being a polition this type of behavior is tolerated or expected...

What does this say to the rest of the world, about Canadians.

Leaders are supposed to show the highest forms of leadership values...lead by example.. Something i think is lacking in most parties today...

We need to vote for a leader, that we will know act in a way that is best for the majority of the country. not what is best for the few....

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I cannot and will not countenance, condone or forgive  outright theft. ... And that is what the Liberals, with Paul Martin,John Chretien and many other senior , trusted people at the heart of our nation have done.

I'm getting tired of this false accusation. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal.

It's nice you object to theft, but too bad you seem to have no similar objection to bearing false witness.

It simply does not matter if they were directly involved.

Of course it matters. If they were involved, they are theives. If they were not involved, they are not theives.

  If they weren't, then their collective massive incompetence is ... 

You JUST SAID your main concern, what you really objected to, is THEFT. You don't have any idea what you are typing from moment to moment, do you?

They took our tax money, laundered it, and gave it to themselves and their friends. 

There you go with the likely false accusations again. Who do you mean by 'they'?

What Stephen Harper or Jack Layton or Brian Mulroney might do is not relevant, because it has not happened yet, ...

Brian Mulroney has not happened yet? Whoa! You missed the 80's did you?

[Army Guy]

The Terrible sweal:

I'm getting tired of this false accusation. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal.

I'm just curious, why is the country having the inquiry in the first place.... An accusation must have been made. There must be some sort of evidence....why would they be dragging this thing on and on....

[Argus]

... I cannot and will not countenance, condone or forgive  outright theft. ... And that is what the Liberals, with Paul Martin,John Chretien and many other senior , trusted people at the heart of our nation have done.

I'm getting tired of this false accusation. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal.

And how do you define "involved"? Most Canadians believe Paul Martin was lying when he testified that he knew nothing about the misuse of public funds. I think he knew full well what was happening, and some testimony seems to indicate he wanted the same preferences directed towards firms which supported him. I think all Quebec cabinet ministers, at the least, knew what was going on.

But in any case, you have attempted to define government as the PM and his cabinet. That is not the govenrment. The government is the PM, and a variety of faceless, nameless individuals who make up the senior leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. MPs are only the public face, and for the most part, they have no power anyway. It is those backroom boys who actually decide on government policy, and who are responsible for, among other things, raking in cash in exchange for "adjusting" bills, laws and programs to suit those who donate substantial sums to the Liberal Party. Your average Liberal MP couldn't even get his phone call returned by the Prime Minister. But when Benoit Corbeil wanted something done, you can bet it got done, whether that meant getting a man appointed as a judge, or getting some bill softened or changed so as to not harm the interests of a generous supporter.

[I Miss Trudeau]

And how do you define "involved"? Most Canadians believe Paul Martin was lying when he testified that he knew nothing about the misuse of public funds. I think he knew full well what was happening, and some testimony seems to indicate he wanted the same preferences directed towards firms which supported him.  I think all Quebec cabinet ministers, at the least, knew what was going on.

Most Canadians believe...

I think...

I think...

Did you even read Sweal's post before you tried to respond to it? If you did, you no doubt noticed that your post supported his claim.

But in any case, you have attempted to define government as the PM and his cabinet. That is not the govenrment. The government is the PM, and a variety of faceless, nameless individuals who make up the senior leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. MPs are only the public face, and for the most part, they have no power anyway. It is those backroom boys who actually decide on government policy, and who are responsible for, among other things, raking in cash in exchange for "adjusting" bills, laws and programs to suit those who donate substantial sums to the Liberal Party.  Your average Liberal MP couldn't even get his phone call returned by the Prime Minister. But when Benoit Corbeil wanted something done, you can bet it got done, whether that meant getting a man appointed as a judge, or getting some bill softened or changed so as to not harm the interests of a generous supporter.

Could you clarify this please? As it stands, I can see no connection between this and the post you are responding to.

[Argus]

And how do you define "involved"? Most Canadians believe Paul Martin was lying when he testified that he knew nothing about the misuse of public funds. I think he knew full well what was happening, and some testimony seems to indicate he wanted the same preferences directed towards firms which supported him.  I think all Quebec cabinet ministers, at the least, knew what was going on.

Most Canadians believe...

I think...

I think...

In a COMPAS poll taken in February 80% said they did not believe Martin when he said he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, that he knew and knows more than he is saying.

SWEAL: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal

But in any case, you have attempted to define government as the PM and his cabinet. That is not the govenrment. The government is the PM, and a variety of faceless, nameless individuals who make up the senior leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. MPs are only the public face, and for the most part, they have no power anyway. It is those backroom boys who actually decide on government policy, and who are responsible for, among other things, raking in cash in exchange for "adjusting" bills, laws and programs to suit those who donate substantial sums to the Liberal Party.  Your average Liberal MP couldn't even get his phone call returned by the Prime Minister. But when Benoit Corbeil wanted something done, you can bet it got done, whether that meant getting a man appointed as a judge, or getting some bill softened or changed so as to not harm the interests of a generous supporter.

Could you clarify this please? As it stands, I can see no connection between this and the post you are responding to.

Dearest Trudeauphile, It pains me more than you can guess that my answer confused you. I thought long and hard about how I could rearange or rewrite a response to what I thought was blindingly obvious. Alas, it IS blindingly obvious in its purpose and to what it responded - once I plugged back in the bit you deleted - but I have done my best for you in underlining the part of the text which is most relevent to my response. If you still don't understand the connection we will both have to live with our mutual sorrow and move on.

[I Miss Trudeau]

In a COMPAS poll taken in February 80% said they did not believe Martin when he said he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, that he knew and knows more than he is saying.

And this counts as evidence in your world, I suppose? Do you even know what evidence is? I realize you don't want a lack of evidence to get in the way of your blanket condemnations, but come on.

Have another look at what Sweal wrote. You know, the post that you have responded to, and quoted, but which you still seem to not have read.

SWEAL: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal

If you take issue with that claim, simply provide some evidence. Simple, yet effective!

But in any case, you have attempted to define government as the PM and his cabinet. That is not the govenrment. The government is the PM, and a variety of faceless, nameless individuals who make up the senior leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. MPs are only the public face, and for the most part, they have no power anyway. It is those backroom boys who actually decide on government policy, and who are responsible for, among other things, raking in cash in exchange for "adjusting" bills, laws and programs to suit those who donate substantial sums to the Liberal Party.  Your average Liberal MP couldn't even get his phone call returned by the Prime Minister. But when Benoit Corbeil wanted something done, you can bet it got done, whether that meant getting a man appointed as a judge, or getting some bill softened or changed so as to not harm the interests of a generous supporter.

Could you clarify this please? As it stands, I can see no connection between this and the post you are responding to.

Dearest Trudeauphile, It pains me more than you can guess that my answer confused you.

It pains me to read nonsensical drivel, due to your need to rant incoherently.

I thought was blindingly obvious. Alas, it IS blindingly obvious in its purpose and to what it responded - once I plugged back in the bit you deleted -

Oh, you mean the bit that you still havent read and fully understood? Anyway, let me try to get your "logic" straight.

Your claim seems to be that if there is evidence that anyone remotely connected to the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, it is evidence that the party was involved?

So, by the same line of reasoning, we can conclude that if there is evidence of a person connected to the Conservative party being involved in corporate fraud, there is evidence that the Conservative party is involved in corporate fraud?

[Argus]

In a COMPAS poll taken in February 80% said they did not believe Martin when he said he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, that he knew and knows more than he is saying.

And this counts as evidence in your world, I suppose?

Of public distrust. Yes. Sorry you don't see it that way.

SWEAL: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal

If you take issue with that claim, simply provide some evidence. Simple, yet effective!

I don't feel the need to regurgitate all of the testimony and evidence the Gomery Commision has seen over the past several months which indicate widespread corruption in the Liberal Party. I think the corruption of the Liberals is well-established enough.

Not to you, of course. But then, you're - special.

Your claim seems to be that if there is evidence that anyone remotely connected to the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, it is evidence that the party was involved?

I'm not sure most people would accept the thought that the head of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing would be termed "remotely connected" to the party, nor the people in the PMO, we have heard were involved in adscam. I'm not sure people entirely discount the statements made about Paul Martin angrily insisting on his share of the money for his own pet campaign supporters either.

But then, to miss Trudeau is to miss corruption. You must be quite happy with what has been said. Jean Chretien surpasses his master.

[fellowtraveller]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization

Only if you consider that sworn testimony, corroborated by other sworn testimony, delivered tearfully in front of a federal judge at a public inquiry is not evidence.... Judge Gomery calls it evidence.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck - except to the Liberal Apologists League. Everything looks like swans to them. Beautiful persecuted swans.....

[Guest eureka]

It is indeed,sworn testimony. But what does it swear to? Not to the alledations that are beung made about Martin and the Liberal Party.

It is also only the testimony that has to be wighed against contrary testimony. It is not evidence.It is the testimony of self-confessed thieves, liars, and frauds and no more credible than the denials of those against whom there are no charges.

There is also sworn testimony from one participant that does deny some of Brault's assertions. There is testimony from Brault's accountant that the cheque Brault claims to have delivered to a Liberal workey under duress, never existed.

We need something a little more convincing than the justice of the Wild West. We are still going to have to wait to find out what did happen.

If there is an election based on the unsubstantiated claims that are being made and it later turns out that they are false, what will the reaction of the Canadian people be to that; what will the reaction of all those "insulted" Quebeckers be to that.

What will be the assessment of the unholy alliance of Harper and Duceppe?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization

Only if you consider that sworn testimony, corroborated by other sworn testimony, delivered tearfully in front of a federal judge at a public inquiry is not evidence.... Judge Gomery calls it evidence.

Bullcrap. That is not evidence of the Liberal party as an organization doing anything. It is may be evidence of some Liberals doing things in the name of the organization, but that is not the same.

[Army Guy]

Thats exactly what the majority of the Airborne Regt said....just as the Liberals disbanded them....The deeds of a few were paid for by the many....

Why is it that in most normal organizations, that when anything as big as this inquiry happens...the leader of the organization takes responsiabilty,stands-up takes it like a man or women then steps down...

But because we as Canadians expect the liberals not to except any blame or resposiabilty for anything, including showing leadership required to run this country.

[cybercoma]

If you don't think the current Liberal Party is involved in the whole adscam deal, you obviously didn't look hard enough for things that weren't readily available....and that's as far into that as I'll get, for risk of being banned or worse.

[Guest eureka]

If you don't think the current Liberal Party is involved in the whole adscam deal, you obviously didn't look hard enough for things that weren't readily available....and that's as far into that as I'll get, for risk of being banned or worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A mystery! When will we learn? Is it continued next week?

[cybercoma]

If you don't think the current Liberal Party is involved in the whole adscam deal, you obviously didn't look hard enough for things that weren't readily available....and that's as far into that as I'll get, for risk of being banned or worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A mystery! When will we learn? Is it continued next week?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ask Gomery next time you two are having coffee at Tim Horton's.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Ask Gomery next time you two are having coffee at Tim Horton's.

I would ask him, but I'm sure he would like to hear this evidence as much as anyone else, if it exists.

Looking back over this thread, I see a small handful of posters who claim that there is evidence linking the liberal party to adscam. I also see that not a single one of them has been able to offer even a shred of that purported evidence. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that the absence of evidence is conspicuous.

[Argus]

Looking back over this thread, I see a small handful of posters who claim that there is evidence linking the liberal party to adscam. I also see that not a single one of them has been able to offer even a shred of that purported evidence. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that the absence of evidence is conspicuous.

I wonl't, actually, have to do any such thing.

To begin with, we're not talking about evidence as in the kind and weight of admissable evidence in a court of law required to convict someone of a crime. That standard of evidence is used by no one anywhere in life. It is unique to the courts, and even then to the criminal courts because of the seriousness of the state's efforts to punish a citizen.

We are talking here of the kind of evidence an ordinary human being uses to judge people and issues and groups and parties. By that standard the Auditor General's report combined with the weight of testimony at the Gomery Commision is more than sufficient to judge the Liberal Party organization as being utterly corrupt. For the first time we are hearing in sworm testimony the kind of things we have all (except Liberals) accepted as reality for many years. People are given judgeships for becoming friends with politicians, for example. Advertising agencies - and numerous other corporations and individuals - are given lucrative contracts, often overppriced, in exchange for donating money ot the Liberals. It wasn't quite as well known that these companies were providing free services to the Liberal Party during election campaigns in exchange for paybacks, but it was certainly suspected. The actual cash kickbacks were worse than most suspected, but unsurprising given the level of patronage and corruption elsewhere within the party.

And the fact is that no amount of evidence will ever convince some people of Liberal guilt anyway. Because the alternative to them is the Tories, and they fear, hate and loathe the Tories and whatever strange imaginary agendas they think the Tories hold. If Paul Martin was caught on videotape beheading babies and drinking their blood you'd still find many people rushing to deny it for fear of the Tories.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I wonl't, actually, have to do any such thing.

And here we see the tried and true Argus escape again. Cut and run when someone questions your view, and pretend to have been talking about something else entirely all along.

That said, I'm glad that you seem to have realized that "evidence of Liberal corruption" is not the same as "evidence of public perception of liberal corruption." Small steps!

[Argus]

I wonl't, actually, have to do any such thing.

And here we see the tried and true Argus escape again. Cut and run when someone questions your view, and pretend to have been talking about something else entirely all along.

1. You didn't ask about my view

2. I didn't cut and run

3. You suggested you should be excused. I said no.

4. Self delusion must be a wonderful thing if you're a LIberal these days. You can just pretend the world is still your oyster and the taxpayer's pocket is still yours to pick at will.

That said, I'm glad that you seem to have realized that "evidence of Liberal corruption" is not the same as "evidence of public perception of liberal corruption." Small steps

Now if only you would realize that the standard of evidence required to make a decision about politicians is not the same standard as required by law in criminal trials.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Now if only you would realize that the standard of evidence required to make a decision about politicians is not the same standard as required by law in criminal trials.

Perhaps. Thankfully, however, most people require a little more than unsubstantiated testimony, particularly when some of that testimony comes from a person who has changed his story three times in two years.

[Argus]

Now if only you would realize that the standard of evidence required to make a decision about politicians is not the same standard as required by law in criminal trials.

Perhaps. Thankfully, however, most people require a little more than unsubstantiated testimony, particularly when some of that testimony comes from a person who has changed his story three times in two years.

You just don't get it, do you? We're not talking about unsubstantiated testimony.

Companies give money to politicians for a reason. Companies donate time, lawyers donate services, for a reason; payback. Now you can pretend that those advertising firms just stole money, and maybe even that a few low level Liberal party operators pocketed the money without anyone else's knowledge.

But explain how all those contracts wound up going to those advertising agencies?

Give money. Get contracts. Give money. Get contracts. There's a relationship here you and the other Liberals seem to be ignoring.

Corbeil does not have the power to award multi-million dollar contracts. His only power, as president of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, was to contact the politicians of his party and get them to do what needed to be done.

What, you think all those contracts being awarded to Quebec firms who kicked back money to the LIberals, not just through the sponsorship program, as has been testified, but in other areas, were all because of.... coincidence?!

Those ad companies were forking over those fat envelopes full of cash because they knew Corbeil would get them contracts. And Corbeil couldn't do it without the help of cabinet ministers - and the PMO, who controlled the purse strings.

[cybercoma]

Has the ban been lifted yet?