Martin goes on the attack.

[sharkman]

Speaking of respect and common decency, who said the following?

The Liberal party has "been found guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime..."

Does that statement show respect and common decency?  Is the statement true?

If the statement is not true, what does it say about the person who uttered it?

Calling it hyperbole does not, of course, make the statement true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Norman, did Harper say that on this board?(No) These rules don't apply to those not posting on this board. However, Harper has been called a lot worse in the media than a law breaker so if you want to compare "statements that don't show respect and common decency", be prepared to defend a ton of Liberal quotes and others calling him all sorts of names.

[Guest eureka]

Explain the logic of suspicion and assumption to me, Argus.

Kimmy, the Gomery report has been delivered. It does not make the assumptions you leap to.

The RCMP investigates all the concerns. Thus far, they do not make the charges you do.

[shoop]

The RCMP investigates all the information referred to them. Maybe, just maybe an independent prosecutor would look at a different set of information.

The RCMP investigates all the concerns. Thus far, they do not make the charges you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Speaking of respect and common decency, who said the following?

The Liberal party has "been found guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime..."

Does that statement show respect and common decency?  Is the statement true?

If the statement is not true, what does it say about the person who uttered it?

Calling it hyperbole does not, of course, make the statement true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, Norman, did Harper say that on this board?

No. Here's where he was reported to have said it:

http://www.politicswatch.com/election-nov24-2005.htm

[sharkman]

Uh, Norman, did Harper say that on this board?(No)  These rules don't apply to those not posting on this board.  However, Harper has been called a lot worse in the media than a law breaker so if you want to compare "statements that don't show respect and common decency", be prepared to defend a ton of Liberal quotes and others calling him all sorts of names.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman, I invite you to look at the entire picture. Politicians call each other things all the time, and certainly during an election. You're going to have to grow tougher skin because the campaign has only just begun.

[Argus]

Explain the logic of suspicion and assumption to me, Argus.

Why on Earth would I need to do that? You're well versed in them. Just read back on some of the damned silly. paranoid suspicions you've posted about the Tories' "hidden agenda" which includes everything from beating up homosexuals to inviting space aliens and George Bush to take over the country so we'll have no health care and all be transported to Iraq.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, the Gomery report has been delivered. It does not make the assumptions you leap to.

The Gomery report had a clearly defined mandate, and within the scope of its mandate was thoroughly damning. It rejects the "a few rogue individuals" argument perpetuated by many on this forum, and specifically states that the party cannot escape responsibility. And what reason would I have to believe that the mentality Gomery referred to in his report is not also in evidence in other government programs? In fact we've already seen that it is, as the RCMP found fraudulent expenses at the gun registry.

The RCMP investigates all the concerns. Thus far, they do not make the charges you do.

The RCMP has not investigated all the concerns. They've investigated what they were asked to. As for the rest, they're not able to show up anywhere they feel like and start going through ledgers. They investigate when they're asked to (as Chretien belatedly did with sponsorship), or if they are given specific knowledge of criminal activity (but with the state of whistleblower protection, what are the odds of that?) The rest of the stuff hasn't been investigated by the RCMP. The charges laid at the gun registry, for instance, came out only by chance during investigation of sponsorship.

-k

[normanchateau]

Harper should avoid making the more outre allegations, such as the involvement of organized crime.  That's not something most Canadians are willing to believe, and therefore it stretches Harper's credibility when he says that sort of thing.

"Organized crime" involvement was not the only outrageous statement. How about "broke every conceivable law in the province of Quebec"'? As far as I'm concerned, the more outrageous Harper's statements are, the more Canadians are likely to acknowledge that the CPC leader has difficulty distinguishing between the facts and the truth. Then again, the Deputy Leader of the CPC is no better in distinguishing falsehoods from truth. Didn't Peter MacKay make a deal with David Orchard that he'd never make a deal with Stephen Harper? If CPC doesn't view that as lying, it's no wonder that they've attempted to portray Harper as an "honest man".

[scribblet]

Uh, Norman, did Harper say that on this board?(No)  These rules don't apply to those not posting on this board.  However, Harper has been called a lot worse in the media than a law breaker so if you want to compare "statements that don't show respect and common decency", be prepared to defend a ton of Liberal quotes and others calling him all sorts of names.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Norman, I invite you to look at the entire picture. Politicians call each other things all the time, and certainly during an election. You're going to have to grow tougher skin because the campaign has only just begun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Rick Mercer gets it -

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...7d-3821cbdd5297

Rick Mercer, host of Rick Mercer Report on CBC Television: I would have to give it to Stephen Harper in the first week. The Liberals started out by acting hurt about the organized crime cracks, but after 15 years of the Liberals, almost every Canadian has called them far worse than connected to the Mob. Nobody is going to buy Paul Martin playing the sad clown. And it's embarrassing to see the Liberals accuse Harper of not loving Canada. It's something you'd expect from someone in Grade 5.

[normanchateau]

Rick Mercer, host of Rick Mercer Report on CBC Television: I would have to give it to Stephen Harper in the first week. The Liberals started out by acting hurt about the organized crime cracks, but after 15 years of the Liberals, almost every Canadian has called them far worse than connected to the Mob. Nobody is going to buy Paul Martin playing the sad clown. And it's embarrassing to see the Liberals accuse Harper of not loving Canada. It's something you'd expect from someone in Grade 5.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clever of Rick Mercer to say appealing things to CPC supporters. Is it because he wants to appear objective and nonpartisan, attacking all four party leaders as he did on his television show this past week? Or is it because after the January election is blown once again by Stephen Harper, Rick Mercer will seek the Conservative leadership? Here's a link speculating on Mercer's plans many months ago to seek the CPC leadership:

http://www.liberalunderground.ca/mercer_leader_062705.php

[cybercoma]

See norman, the media has moved on and you probly should

Oh no, a week old! Imagine expecting Harper to have not changed his position or not flipflopped for an entire week. That is expecting a lot 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it relevant that the media have moved on? The media are far too kind to Harper and have failed to remind Canadians that Harper is even more socially conservative than many of his supporters. CPC is doomed in the next election given that 70% of Canadians prefer parties to the left of Harper's and Harper has positioned himself such that he seems even more conservative than much of his own party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

90% of all statistics are made up.

I just made that up.

[normanchateau]

Clever of Rick Mercer to say appealing things to CPC supporters. Is it because he wants to appear objective and nonpartisan, attacking all four party leaders as he did on his television show this past week?  Or is it because after the January election is blown once again by Stephen Harper, Rick Mercer will seek the Conservative leadership?  Here's a link speculating on Mercer's plans many months ago to seek the CPC leadership:

http://www.liberalunderground.ca/mercer_leader_062705.php

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's another speculation. If Rick Mercer were to become CPC leader, he'd win a majority government. Then again, no matter who replaces Harper after the next election, as long as that person is not another social conservative, stands a good shot at a majority government. Most Canadians could have told us this after the 2004 election but CPC supporters are not most Canadians. Even left wing parties like the NDP annd BQ will, between them, pick up more of the popular vote than the unpopular CPC.

[Guest eureka]

The Gomery Report did not reject the "few Rogue" theory. Indeed. it reinforced it in pointing to only a few individuals. Beyond that, it reported only that some of those few were within the Quebec Wing of the Liberal Party.

The RCMP does and will, investigate whereit pleases and need not wait to be asked by government. It is not subject to government interferece as would be a Public Prosecutor. Had the government not asked for an investigation, there would have been one by the RCMP since allegations of criminality were being made.

This whole affair stinks of politics at its lowest and of public ignorance on display as it never has been before. The sponsorship affair was designed with the good of the country in mind. The abusers should be rooted out and punished and the management lesson learned.

Then get on with the most important domestic issue of nation building instead giving encouragement to those who would destroy it. If there is fault in this, it can be laid aquarely at the door of the Bloc and the PQ. Without there seditious intentions and obstruction of governance, there would be no cause to waste time and money and to hinder the economic and social progress of Canada by diverting so much of our human and economic resources to a fight that could be over with the simple telling of Quebec Nationalists that there will be no separation and no avoidance of devoiding of democratic rights and the Rule of Law by Quebec in the name of its "distinctness."

We call it tolerance: the world calls it stupidity and cowardice.

[Argus]

The Gomery Report did not reject the "few Rogue" theory. Indeed. it reinforced it in pointing to only a few individuals. Beyond that, it reported only that some of those few were within the Quebec Wing of the Liberal Party.

Twaddle. I am not basing my opinion or vote on what a judge had to say about legally admisable evidence in a court of law. Just because there is no legal evidence dug up by police forces controlled by the Liberal Party and presented to judges appointed by the Liberal Party does not mean I'm going to assume everything is clean and clear.

I do not believe Paul Martin knew nothing about this; nor do most Canadians. He was deputy PM, Finance Minister, Vice President of the Treasury Board, and the second (some would say most) powerful man in the party with a massive political machine spread out throughout Canada. Don't tell me he didn't know anything.

In addition, there were dozens of Quebec MPs. Don't tell me none of them had any idea about this. They know what federal money is being spent in their ridings. They can put two and two together when the government gives a half million dollar grant but the fair/exhibit/company in their riding only takes in a quarter of a million.

Then there were some 50 odd cabinet ministers. None of them had a clue about what was going on in Quebec? BS.

The party hierarchy had no idea about what its own people were doing, and how they were raising funds in Quebec, for years? Who put these people in touch with civil servants like Chuck Guite? Who protected Guite from the consequenes of violating hundreds of rules and regulatioins? The PMO. That is pretty clear.

I don't care if there is enough legal evidence to charge and convict all these people. They stand convicted of complicity, if only by neglect of their duty.

[Argus]

Clever of Rick Mercer to say appealing things to CPC supporters. Is it because he wants to appear objective and nonpartisan, attacking all four party leaders as he did on his television show this past week? 

Most likely it's because Martin's "I LOVE CANADA!!!" speech was so embarrassingly inane that even Liberals winced.

Especially when he won't even put the Canadian flag on his ships.

[Guest eureka]

I guess that is the difference between us, Argus. I prefer evidence to what I would like to believe. Belief is always a problem when it is converted into partisanship.

[Argus]

Explain the logic of suspicion and assumption to me, Argus.

Kimmy, the Gomery report has been delivered. It does not make the assumptions you leap to.

The RCMP investigates all the concerns. Thus far, they do not make the charges you do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The RCMP commisioner has been a government toady for the last twenty years. Zachardelli is a leather fetishist who alternatively crawls or jumps when someone in the government snaps his or her fingers. This is the same RCMP which gladly cooperated with the intimidation against Francois Beaudoin, the former head of the Business Development Bank (and oh how I'd like to see the AG do an audit of what they're doing with our money) at the behest of Chretien's croney and leg breaker Jean Carle. They raided his home and cottage on more than one occasion and tried their damndest to persuade the Quebec Attorney General to lay charges - even though, as an inquiry subsequently pointed out, there was zero evidence of wrongdoing.

Whoever is "investigating" political wrongdoing by the Liberals, you can rest assured they will find nothing of substance against anyone but the lowest party workers, and even that will get only minor convictions, if any, which lead to even more minor sentences by Liberal appointed judges.

One of the Tory promises should be to fire Zachardelli and go through the senior ranks of the RCMP with a chain saw to weed out his own toadies and favorites and try and get some kind of integrity back into our federal police force. Then they should establish a genuine, non-partisan group to act as an intermediary between the government and the RCMP to avoid political influence in future.

[normanchateau]

Twaddle. I am not basing my opinion or vote on what a judge had to say about legally admisable evidence in a court of law.

I don't care if there is enough legal evidence to charge and convict all these people. They stand convicted of complicity,

Love these comments. Good thing the CPC does not appoint judges since such CPC judges wouldn't be hindered or shackled by technicalities like evidence. Evidence...who needs evidence when one already knows who's guilty?

Let's hope you're never charged with a crime then found guilty by a CPC jury who did not base their opinion on legal evidence.

Convicted of complicity? What a joke. Are you saying that every Liberal MP in British Columbia is guilty of complicity? What a hoot. How about those who voted Liberal in Quebec? Is a Liberal voter in Quebec more complicit than a British Columbia Liberal MP? By your logic, yes.

The "Liberal corruption" mantra is yet another feeble attempt to distract Canadian voters from the fact that Stephen Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

[sharkman]

Oops, I posted without checking my facts.(nevermind)

[Argus]

Twaddle. I am not basing my opinion or vote on what a judge had to say about legally admisable evidence in a court of law.

I don't care if there is enough legal evidence to charge and convict all these people. They stand convicted of complicity,

Love these comments. Good thing the CPC does not appoint judges since such CPC judges wouldn't be hindered or shackled by technicalities like evidence.

Odd you should say this. Many of us have been making the same statement about our Supreme Court for some years. Evidence? Who cares? They make their decisions based on their own political beliefs and agendas, not evidence.

So far as I know, none were appointed by the CPC

[kimmy]

Clever of Rick Mercer to say appealing things to CPC supporters. Is it because he wants to appear objective and nonpartisan, attacking all four party leaders as he did on his television show this past week?  Or is it because after the January election is blown once again by Stephen Harper, Rick Mercer will seek the Conservative leadership?  Here's a link speculating on Mercer's plans many months ago to seek the CPC leadership:

http://www.liberalunderground.ca/mercer_leader_062705.php

Do you really think Mercer is trying to appeal to CPC supporters so that he can win the leadership at the next convention?

You understand that Rick Mercer is a comedian, and that if he's planning to seek the CPC leadership, it's because he thinks it'll be a funny stunt to use on his show, right?

-k

[normanchateau]

Do you really think Mercer is trying to appeal to CPC supporters so that he can win the leadership at the next convention?

You understand that Rick Mercer is a comedian, and that if he's planning to seek the CPC leadership, it's because he thinks it'll be a funny stunt to use on his show, right?

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes, of course I know that and if you go to the link I posted, it's obvious.

Perhaps next time I make an attempt at humour I will wear my moose horns so you'll know.

[kimmy]

The Gomery Report did not reject the "few Rogue" theory. Indeed. it reinforced it in pointing to only a few individuals. Beyond that, it reported only that some of those few were within the Quebec Wing of the Liberal Party.

When the "rogue few" happen to be two consecutive party presidents in Quebec, plus a Cabinet Minister, plus some of the former Prime Minister's closest friends and associates... they're not rogues.

Gomery explicitly stated that the Party cannot escape blame. Gomery spoke of a "culture of entitlement".

The RCMP does and will, investigate whereit pleases and need not wait to be asked by government. It is not subject to government interferece as would be a Public Prosecutor. Had the government not asked for an investigation, there would have been one by the RCMP since allegations of criminality were being made.

I really doubt it. I don't believe you. Offer me a shred of evidence that the RCMP has the ability to act as an auditor on its own initiative. Offer me a shred of evidence that they've looked into any of the other issues I mentioned. I don't think they have. I don't believe your claim that they could or that they have.

This whole affair stinks of politics at its lowest and of public ignorance on display as it never has been before. The sponsorship affair was designed with the good of the country in mind. The abusers should be rooted out and punished and the management lesson learned.

Then get on with the most important domestic issue of nation building instead giving encouragement to those who would destroy it. If there is fault in this, it can be laid aquarely at the door of the Bloc and the PQ. Without there seditious intentions and obstruction of governance, there would be no cause to waste time and money and to hinder the economic and social progress of Canada by diverting so much of our human and economic resources to a fight that could be over with the simple telling of Quebec Nationalists that there will be no separation and no avoidance of devoiding of democratic rights and the Rule of Law by Quebec in the name of its "distinctness."

We call it tolerance: the world calls it stupidity and cowardice.

And, of course, blaming the BQ and PQ for all that went wrong is one of the funniest things that Liberal supporters come up with. Did they launder money for the Quebec Liberals? Did they issue fraudulent contracts?

Maybe the sponsorship program would have done exactly what it was supposed to, if the Liberals hadn't let their own greed bring it into disrepute. Sure, blame the BQ and PQ for creating the incentive for the program, but all of the blame for its failures are squarely with the Liberals. Its undeniable.

I guess that is the difference between us, Argus. I prefer evidence to what I would like to believe. Belief is always a problem when it is converted into partisanship.

Don't give us that. Brian Mulroney was never convicted of anything, but you've often written of your belief in his guilt. There's a world of difference between proving someone guilty and finding someone trustworthy. OJ Simpson was acquitted of cutting his wife's throat, but I certainly wouldn't date the man.

-k

[kimmy]

Yes, yes, of course I know that and if you go to the link I posted, it's obvious.

Perhaps next time I make an attempt at humour I will wear my moose horns so you'll know.

Trust me, you've provided me with more chuckles than you know.

-k

[normanchateau]

Twaddle. I am not basing my opinion or vote on what a judge had to say about legally admisable evidence in a court of law.

I don't care if there is enough legal evidence to charge and convict all these people. They stand convicted of complicity,

Love these comments. Good thing the CPC does not appoint judges since such CPC judges wouldn't be hindered or shackled by technicalities like evidence.

Odd you should say this. Many of us have been making the same statement about our Supreme Court for some years. Evidence? Who cares?

So is your point that it's bad for the Supreme Court to make decisions in the absence of evidence but it's OK to assume every Liberal MP is guilty of something or other in the absence of evidence.