More Conservative Corruption

[Argus]

And what about the money in brown envelopes left on restaurant tables in the province of quebec?That was a liberal way of business,they are a smart bunch,no paper trail.

Acts committed by a few Liberals out of thousands of party workers -

Yeah. The ones in charge.

[Argus]

The CBC article is filled with innuendo but no accusation of wrong-doing. Dhahan tells us, one year after the fact, that he didn't get a receipt.  That's like saying, "Last year, I went to McDonald's and bought a Big Mac.  And you know what?  I didn't get a receipt."

I actually heard the guy talking on the radio. He said quite clearly:

1) Grewal asked that the check made out to Grewel personally - this act itself is against the election act.

Is it a violation of the elections act to have party workers paid for under the table by private interests and not reported?

Is it a violation of the elections act to have party work, ie sign printing, paid for by private interests in exchange for government contracts - not only not reporting it but paying for it with taxpayer money?

Is it a violation of the elections act to accept massive amounts of cash money in brown paper bags and never report it?

Is it a violation of the elections act to get free legal services in exchange for naming the lawyers as judges later on?

The CBC apparently has no interest in any of these, but considers a couple of $600 cheques to be reason for a huge news story and investigation. I think the average news story today lasts about 20 seconds. This one ran for several minutes.

And suggesting this falls into the same "category" as the Gomery inquiry is ludicrous. That's like saying because someone stole a comic book when he was a kid he falls into the same category as Bernie Ebbers.

[Argus]

THe truth here is that the Liberal's have been proven to be corrupt with testimony after testimony.

Absolutely no evidence has come out at Gomery that proves that all Liberals are corrupt. A few yes - even probably some senior Liberals like Gagliano.

And Chretien, and Martin.

Anyone who doesn't think Chretien was up to this to his dirty little ears is too painfully naive to even be considered an adult.

Anyone who thinks Paul Martin didn't know all about it is a fool.

[I Miss Trudeau]

And Chretien, and Martin.

Anyone who doesn't think Chretien was up to this to his dirty little ears is too painfully naive to even be considered an adult.

Anyone who thinks Paul Martin didn't know all about it is a fool.

Right. So anybody that doesn't arrive at the same conclusion as you have (with no evidence, I might add) is a foolish child?

How about this:

Anyone who holds a position, without being able to support it empirically or through argument, and maintains that anyone who disagrees with him/her is a fool, is, well, a fool.

[PocketRocket]

So the main contention, in this rather protracted and partisan bicker, is whether this one incident should even be considered simply because it is not of the same scope as the sponsorship scandal.

To those who make this their contention, I say "fair enough".

But also you must consider the fact that Gomery had been an ongoing story for quite some time.

Each and every time a Conservative puts his foot in it, someone says "This is nothing compared to Gomery".

And in saying this, most times you are right.

But the fact remains, it is a story, and it is a black mark against at least one Conservative MP.

Also, take note of the fact that most of the previous negative press about Conservatives in the past several months have mostly faded away, and this is fresh and new.

Whether or not the Sponsorship fiasco was a bigger wrong is not the point.

Wrong is wrong.

Grewal is center stage because of the whole tape episode, and just as that's starting to fade from the public's attention, this jumps up to slap him in the face.

Bottom line, if Grewal is corrupt, it does not mean all the Conservatives are corrupt.

Likewise, some of the Liberals who were responsible in the sponsorship scandal are indeed corrupt, but that does not make all Liberals, or even the Liberal party corrupt.

Not even, ARGUS, the "ones who were in power", unless you want to be more specific and name names. If you choose to do so, please cite evidence supporting your claims.

Anyone who thinks Paul Martin didn't know all about it is a fool.

.....is hardly a rational argument, and is not any form of debate.

Nor is it a worthy representation of your considerable intelligence.

To the Liberal types, enjoy your time ranting on Grewal.

To the Conservative types, relax, Gomery will still be around for a while yet.

[PocketRocket]

Anyone who holds a position, without being able to support it empirically or through argument, and maintains that anyone who disagrees with him/her is a fool, is, well, a fool.

And replies in kind will hardly do anything to elevate the level of discourse.

[PocketRocket]

The CBC apparently has no interest in any of these, but considers a couple of $600 cheques to be reason for a huge news story and investigation. I think the average news story today lasts about 20 seconds. This one ran for several minutes.

Perhaps they consider it fodder for news because this guy is already in the public eye over the whole doctored-tape episode.

Maybe if it were some obscure back-bencher who no one had ever heard of, then it might have merited just a passing remark.

But Grewal is already under media scrutiny, and like vultures, the media will cirle a wounded man until they see an opening.

This is true of any news media. I don't believe we can single out the CBC here.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Anyone who holds a position, without being able to support it empirically or through argument, and maintains that anyone who disagrees with him/her is a fool, is, well, a fool.

And replies in kind will hardly do anything to elevate the level of discourse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Henceforth, I will endeavor to construct lengthy arguments as to why contentless BS is contentless BS. Pages of argument over why "If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot!" is meaningless BS will no doubt elevate the level of discourse.

Back on topic, Argus' slander with regards to the Gomery inquiry has been refuted and shown lacking many times over. It baffles me that he is still permitted to post his slanderous accusations.

[PocketRocket]

I agree that he sometimes makes sweeping statements, sometimes with little to back them up, and likewise often speaks in black-and-white absolutes, when there are often shades of gray to consider.

As for the "fools" comment, I had addressed that one post before yours.

{(edited to say): Sorry, make that one post AFTER yours.}

And please, I don't need a dissertation. It's late, I'm old, and I have to go to work tomorrow.

I'm off to bed.

BTW, check your PM's.

[August1991]

Each and every time a Conservative puts his foot in it, someone says "This is nothing compared to Gomery".

And in saying this, most times you are right.

But the fact remains, it is a story, and it is a black mark against at least one Conservative MP.

At the very most, it's the beginning of a possible story.

What do we have so far? One year after making a campaign donation to an MP, a guy claims he didn't get a receipt. The RCMP has started an investigation. CBC radio and the CBC web site carry the story. (I thought such RCMP investigations were not made public unless charges were to be laid. Am I right?)

The upcoming campaign will be even nastier than the last, filled with hints and allegations. Paul Martin will appear to be above the fray but he'll be very much involved. The Liberals cannot win by being positive; they can only win by making the other parties look very, very bad. Who else will appear to be above the fray? Watch for the CBC and the RCMP to be involved too.

The Liberal mindset is like the mindset of any one-party state. The Liberals are simply protecting Canada and ensuring stability.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The Liberals cannot win by being positive; they can only win by making the other parties look very, very bad.

To be fair, the only exception to this trend on the federal level is the NDP.

[PocketRocket]

Paul Martin will appear to be above the fray but he'll be very much involved.  The Liberals cannot win by being positive; they can only win by making the other parties look very, very bad.  Who else will appear to be above the fray?  Watch for the CBC and the RCMP to be involved too.

And therein lay the biggest difference (possibly) between Martin and Harper.

Martin stands back (publicly, anyway) from the fray, and makes diplomatic "that's too bad" noises.

Harper jumps in with both feet and starts yelling "corruptiont, corruption", which he continues to do week after week.

I can't even count how many times I've heard him quoted as saying the Liberal party, not individuals, but the entire party, is corrupt.

In so doing, he simply makes himself look like a very angry individual, and not a very likeable one at that.

I believe this has hurt his credibility with many Canadians.

The Liberal mindset is like the mindset of any one-party state.  The Liberals are simply protecting Canada and ensuring stability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic. The tenor of the rest of the post makes it appear so.

But either way, the Liberal mindset, like the mindset of any party, is to keep their own heads above water.

To do so, they must give the appearance of doing what they think is right for the country.

This is politics. It's all about public perception.

The Liberals have proven to be better at appearances, hence their continuing popularity despite Gomery, etc.

The fact that the Conservative party doesn't seem to have figured this out yet does not speak well of Harper et al.

[Argus]

deleted

[Argus]

And Chretien, and Martin.

Anyone who doesn't think Chretien was up to this to his dirty little ears is too painfully naive to even be considered an adult.

Anyone who thinks Paul Martin didn't know all about it is a fool.

Right. So anybody that doesn't arrive at the same conclusion as you have (with no evidence, I might add) is a foolish child?

How about this:

An overwhelming majority of Canadians feel that Paul Martin knew more about the sponsorship spending than he has publicly acknowledged, as shown in table 1. Asked how much the former Finance Minister knew about the misspending, 89% of respondents with an opinion say that Martin knew more than his acknowledges. Over half of all respondents (51%) feel that Martin “knew a lot more”. COMPAS

Canadians doubt PM's sponsorship denials. poll: 67% think Martin knew money was misused - SES Research

In other words, aside from diehard Liberal fanatics, and those esoteric people for whom no amount of evidence will get them to acknowledge a thing without a court (led by a judge who bought his robe) making an official pronouncement, most Canadians realize that Martin is, as always, lying through his teeth.

Except for fools, of course.

[Argus]

Paul Martin will appear to be above the fray but he'll be very much involved.  The Liberals cannot win by being positive; they can only win by making the other parties look very, very bad.  Who else will appear to be above the fray?  Watch for the CBC and the RCMP to be involved too.

And therein lay the biggest difference (possibly) between Martin and Harper.

Martin stands back (publicly, anyway) from the fray, and makes diplomatic "that's too bad" noises.

Harper jumps in with both feet and starts yelling "corruptiont, corruption", which he continues to do week after week

So you're saying that Martin is more like George W Bush, who publicly talks about wanting a clean campaign even while Republicans like the so-called Swift Boat Veterans are taking out TV ads calling Kerry a coward and a killer.

[Riverwind]

An overwhelming majority of Canadians feel that Paul Martin knew more about the sponsorship spending than he has publicly acknowledged, as shown in table 1. Asked how much the former Finance Minister knew about the misspending, 89% of respondents with an opinion say that Martin knew more than his acknowledges. Over half of all respondents (51%) feel that Martin “knew a lot more”.

I agree that he probably heard many rumours - if the conservative and bloc heard the rumors he must have. However, there is a big difference between hearing rumours of shenanigans and actively participating in them. That is a important distinction that our media and oppositions parties are not capable of comprehending, as a result, Martin feels he has to deny any knowledge.

So this poll means nothing. If I was asked I would probably agree that he knew more than he is telling but at the same time I do not believe he actually participated in the fraud. I might change my mind if someone can actually come up with evidence instead of the hearsay and innuendo. However, the fact that after all of the coverage of Gomery the fact no one has produced any evidence of direct involvement by PM PM is a strong sign that there probably was not any.

[Argus]

An overwhelming majority of Canadians feel that Paul Martin knew more about the sponsorship spending than he has publicly acknowledged, as shown in table 1. Asked how much the former Finance Minister knew about the misspending, 89% of respondents with an opinion say that Martin knew more than his acknowledges. Over half of all respondents (51%) feel that Martin “knew a lot more”.

I agree that he probably heard many rumours - if the conservative and bloc heard the rumors he must have. However, there is a big difference between hearing rumours of shenanigans and actively participating in them. That is a important distinction that our media and oppositions parties are not capable of comprehending, as a result, Martin feels he has to deny any knowledge.

"

NEW YORK — In his second day on the witness stand, former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers professed ignorance of the accounting fraud taking root beneath his eyes. The exchange was typical of Tuesday's cross-examination, with Anders trying to portray Ebbers as a cunning executive faced with financial ruin and Ebbers responding almost nonchalantly, saying he didn't notice unusual shifts in the company's accounting practices or delve too deeply into matters outside of the company's sales and marketing efforts.

[Riverwind]

NEW YORK — In his second day on the witness stand, former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers professed ignorance of the accounting fraud taking root beneath his eyes. The exchange was typical of Tuesday's cross-examination, with Anders trying to portray Ebbers as a cunning executive faced with financial ruin and Ebbers responding almost nonchalantly, saying he didn't notice unusual shifts in the company's accounting practices or delve too deeply into matters outside of the company's sales and marketing efforts.

This is typical of conservative slander of the PM and the Liberals. Are you suggesting that everyone accused of doing something wrong must be guilty because only the guilty claim to be innocent?

At least Ebbers was entitled to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, he was only found guilty because their was concrete testimony from people he worked closely with and documentation that proved that his statements were lies. There is no such evidence in the case of Martin. If anything the fact that no concrete evidence has come out linking Martin to the sponsorship scandal suggests that there is none. Too many people would benefit if he could be taken down - it would not surprise me if the Conservatives try to manufacture evidence - just like the Grewal tapes - if the Gomery report is not to their liking.

That said, unlike some people, I will keep an open mind and I will reserve my final judgment until the Gomery report comes out.

[newbie]

That said, unlike some people, I will keep an open mind and I will reserve my final judgment until the Gomery report comes out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree 100%. And that would hold true for any perceived corruption from a Conversative or other politican as well. No matter how much you dislike it, we are innocent until proven guilty. That is our system.

[mirror]

NEW YORK — In his second day on the witness stand, former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers professed ignorance of the accounting fraud taking root beneath his eyes. The exchange was typical of Tuesday's cross-examination, with Anders trying to portray Ebbers as a cunning executive faced with financial ruin and Ebbers responding almost nonchalantly, saying he didn't notice unusual shifts in the company's accounting practices or delve too deeply into matters outside of the company's sales and marketing efforts.

This is typical of conservative slander of the PM and the Liberals. Are you suggesting that everyone accused of doing something wrong must be guilty because only the guilty claim to be innocent?

At least Ebbers was entitled to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, he was only found guilty because their was concrete testimony from people he worked closely with and documentation that proved that his statements were lies. There is no such evidence in the case of Martin. If anything the fact that no concrete evidence has come out linking Martin to the sponsorship scandal suggests that there is none. Too many people would benefit if he could be taken down - it would not surprise me if the Conservatives try to manufacture evidence - just like the Grewal tapes - if the Gomery report is not to their liking.

That said, unlike some people, I will keep an open mind and I will reserve my final judgment until the Gomery report comes out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you want to allow the benefit of doubt to Liberal Martin but not to Conservative Grewal.

It sounds like you want to have your Liberal cake and eat it too.

[I Miss Trudeau]

An overwhelming majority of Canadians feel that Paul Martin knew more about the sponsorship spending than he has publicly acknowledged, as shown in table 1. Asked how much the former Finance Minister knew about the misspending, 89% of respondents with an opinion say that Martin knew more than his acknowledges. Over half of all respondents (51%) feel that Martin “knew a lot more”. COMPAS

Canadians doubt PM's sponsorship denials. poll: 67% think Martin knew money was misused - SES Research

If a poll showed that 95% of Canadians believed David Millgard was guilty, would that have made it so?

If a poll showed that Canadians believed that either Chretien or Trudeau was the greatest Canadian PM of all time, would you accept that as the gospel truth, too?

Didn't think so.

[Riverwind]

Why do you want to allow the benefit of doubt to Liberal Martin but not to Conservative Grewal.

It sounds like you want to have your Liberal cake and eat it too.

I give him the benefit too - I see no reason for him to resign or otherwise be punished until the proper investigations are complete. My responses on this thread were mainly about pointing out Conservative hypocrisy since the nature and evidence of wrong doing on Grewal's part's is quite similar to the allegations being thrown at the Liberals. You know perfectly well that Harper would have been on cross country tour screaming 'corruption' if a Liberal MP was found to have engaged in similar shady activities but when it comes to his own MPs, Harper is very quick to dismiss charges of corruption.

[Argus]

At least Ebbers was entitled to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

Bullshit. Everyone knew he was guilty and said so.

Furthermore, he was only found guilty because their was concrete testimony from people he worked closely with and documentation that proved that his statements were lies. There is no such evidence in the case of Martin.

I see, so as long as his underlings stick together and keep their mouths shut we're supposed to assume he knew nothing about it? Nope. It don't work that way.

One of the more tiresome cliches among a certain segment of society is this "Innocent until proven guilty" drivel. This is a foundation of LAW, but some have chosen to use it as an every day throwaway line in reference to every question of moral or legal malfeasance of anyone - particularly anyone they support. That is ludicrous. It's a suggestion that no one is able to judge anyone based on what they know and have heard and their own native wisdom and common sense. It's a statement that no one is capable of forming rational judgements except judges - most of whom are corrupt suckups who got their jobs for who they knew anyway.

You might have chosen to throw away your ability to form rational judgements of individuals, blithely assigning it to some third-party, if and when that third-party is consulted. But I have not. Either Paul Martin knew far more about what was going on or he's a complete blithering imbeclie who shouldn't be trusted to bus tables in the parliamentary dining room.

That said, unlike some people, I will keep an open mind and I will reserve my final judgment until the Gomery report comes out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yes, a very open mind.

So open that even if Paul Martin tearfully confesses on live TV your "open mind" will still suggest it's too early to judge him because maybe he was blackmailed into the confession by those evil conservative types or something, or maybe space aliens replaced him with a dopelganger at the instigation of the evil conservatives, or the evil conservatives brought over a twin from another dimension.

But your "open mind" certainly wouldn't judge that there was any real evidence of his guilt, oh no.

[Argus]

Why do you want to allow the benefit of doubt to Liberal Martin but not to Conservative Grewal.

It sounds like you want to have your Liberal cake and eat it too.

I give him the benefit too -

it would not surprise me if the Conservatives try to manufacture evidence - just like the Grewal tapes - Sparkhawk

Sure you do, Mr. Open Mind.

BTW, not even the Liberals have ever suggested the actual words heard on that tape, the offers, the nudge-nudge-wink-wink-"we can talk about rewards after you vote for us" offer from Martin's COS, were manufactured. There was question about what was left out of the tape, but what was there was plenty to show exaclty how sleazy the Liberals were.

[mirror]

Sparhawk........better be careful what you say as it appears that the Grewal accuser has ties to the Liberal party:

Grewal donor who wants tax receipt acknowledges ties to Dosanjh

The Vancouver businessman who is demanding a tax receipt for money he gave Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal two years ago says he is a member at large of Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh's riding association.

Sarup Mann insisted that has nothing to do with his now public demands that Mr. Grewal provide him with tax receipts for a $600 donation he made to Mr. Grewal in 2003 and a $1,800 donation he made to Mr. Grewal's wife, Nina, in 2004.

Mr. Grewal is currently being investigated by the RCMP for donations made to his 2004 re-election campaign.

Mr. Grewal has said the donations were made before new election financing rules came into force and called this latest controversy the work of a smear campaign by the Liberal party.