Harper STILL has not complied with Chief Electoral Officer request

sharkman · October 1, 2006

Let's see: you've told anyone who would listen(and some who would rather not) that Harper is the devil. Yet you say above you are 'truly amazed' that he hasn't dealt with this already. Don't you think someone as evil as Harper supposedly is would hum and haw and eat a few babies before dealing with it? Really, it doesn't add up except in gerry math, I suppose.

Again Gerry, how can you claim you're amazed that Harper hasn't been honest and dealt with this issue when you keep whining about how terrible Harper is. You expect him to be dishonest at every turn and then loudly proclaim amazement when he acts as you expect him to. How can you be amazed at something you're expecting?

And the answer is...anyone...anyone...that Gerry isn't really amazed, he just wants to manipulate simple minded readers to the evils of Harper. Except there aren't any yet, so they have to be imagined. Keep trying Gerry, you'll change someone's mind yet!

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

A conscious decision by a political party to lie knowing that the truth is in full view is amazing and stunning.
If you can only ask "why?" in response to that then I'm wasting my time with you. You're not worth debating if something as simple as this escapes you.

The fact that Kingsley isn't sure the books were submitted is far from proving a *conscious decision* by the CPC to lie. You have provided no support for that assertion

Again with the personal attacks? Well ... two can play that game.

So I take it from your ignoring the questions that...

You haven't worked an honest day in your life.

You would have attacked Harper for not putting the extension of the Afghanistan mission to a vote in parliament just as verociously as you have attacked him for putting the extension to a vote.

You are suffering from some sort of mental illness. My guess is Alzheimer's. i.e. Gerry Hatrick = geriatric

Would explain your sexism, homophobia and general inability to actually debate anything.

How close are you to the end? How does it feel that your last day on this planet will probably be with Harper as PM?

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

A conscious decision by a political party to lie knowing that the truth is in full view is amazing and stunning.
If you can only ask "why?" in response to that then I'm wasting my time with you. You're not worth debating if something as simple as this escapes you.

The fact that Kingsley isn't sure the books were submitted is far from proving a *conscious decision* by the CPC to lie. You have provided no support for that assertion

Kingsley "isn't sure the books were submitted"?

Ricki, you can have different opinions than me but you cannot have your own truth.

Here is a story more than a week old that clearly shows Kingsley is quite clear about whether the CPC has provided what he requested:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...758&k=38976

"If they've given me anything else it's caught up in some type of delivery system because I have not received it," he added, noting that the party has had two and a half months to comply.

And here is a link to the Conservatives lying about handing over these books:

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/arti...ontent=n092049A

Treasury Board President John Baird, the minister in charge of accountability and ethics, repeated that "all the information" had been provided to Elections Canada through the commissioner of Canada elections, who investigates complaints.
But that commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided.

And there have been several comments from the Government in the last 2.5 months claiming that they had complied with the CEO's request.

Kingsley isn't the one confused.

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

"If they've given me anything else it's caught up in some type of delivery system because I have not received it," he added, noting that the party has had two and a half months to comply.

That's *exactly* what I said might have happened.

You have called it bizarre and astounding they haven't complied.

I said something innocent could have happened. Kingsley said that something innocent could have happened.

Where's the proof the Conservatives broke the law?

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

"If they've given me anything else it's caught up in some type of delivery system because I have not received it," he added, noting that the party has had two and a half months to comply.

That's *exactly* what I said might have happened.

You have called it bizarre and astounding they haven't complied.

I said something innocent could have happened. Kingsley said that something innocent could have happened.

Where's the proof the Conservatives broke the law?

You should appreciate that Kingsley is a non-partisan being as charitable as he can be.

By saying that the documents MAY have been "caught up in some type of delivery system" he's being charitable. What kind of "delivery system" takes over 2 months? :rolleyes:

I didn't say there was proof they broke the law, btw. I have said it appears that way. Don't set up red herrings Ricki.

And most important perhaps if you wish to keep up this line of debate: the Conservatives have now stated that they haven't given the requested books to Kingsley. Understand that?

That means your point about where the books are or if there has been an honest mistake about it all is now moot.

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

And most important perhaps if you wish to keep up this line of debate: the Conservatives have now stated that they haven't given the requested books to Kingsley. Understand that?
That means your point about where the books are or if there has been an honest mistake about it all is now moot.

They stated that at some point in the last 34 minutes?

Because that's how long ago you accused them of lying about having handed the books over.

Get your story straight. :rolleyes:

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

And most important perhaps if you wish to keep up this line of debate: the Conservatives have now stated that they haven't given the requested books to Kingsley. Understand that?
That means your point about where the books are or if there has been an honest mistake about it all is now moot.

They stated that at some point in the last 34 minutes?

Because that's how long ago you accused them of lying about having handed the books over.

Get your story straight.

No, they stated that on the same day that they stated they had given the requested books to Kingsley.

I guess you didn't read this post:

Ricki, you can have different opinions than me but you cannot have your own truth.
Here is a story more than a week old that clearly shows Kingsley is quite clear about whether the CPC has provided what he requested:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...758&k=38976

"If they've given me anything else it's caught up in some type of delivery system because I have not received it," he added, noting that the party has had two and a half months to comply.

And here is a link to the Conservatives lying about handing over these books:

http://www.news1130.com/news/national/arti...ontent=n092049A

Treasury Board President John Baird, the minister in charge of accountability and ethics, repeated that "all the information" had been provided to Elections Canada through the commissioner of Canada elections, who investigates complaints.

But that commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided.

And there have been several comments from the Government in the last 2.5 months claiming that they had complied with the CEO's request.

Kingsley isn't the one confused.

Get it into your in denial head:

The CPC claimed several times to have handed over the books Kingsley requested.

Deal with the truth RB. The truth has many fine qualities you might appreciate. Your boss, Mr. Harper, would have had a non-story on his hands if he had embraced the truth at the start of these revelations.

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

Get it into your in denial head:
The CPC claimed several times to have handed over the books Kingsley requested.

Deal with the truth RB. The truth has many fine qualities you might appreciate. Your boss, Mr. Harper, would have had a non-story on his hands if he had embraced the truth at the start of these revelations.

Your story isn't consistent Gerry. Forgetting things? Yet another sign of alzheimer's.

What exactly is a denial head? :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

I've watch C-Pac and I've watch Baird try to justify everything the Cons do and at the end of every speech or comment he does, he slams the Liberal govt for the scam they had as if its justifies what the Cons have done or not done.

I know. That guy needs a new act.

I've never seen someone deflect to non-relavent issues with such outrage in my life!

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

I've never seen someone deflect to non-relavent issues with such outrage in my life!

Don't read you own posts eh Gerry? :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

For those genuinely interested in the topic, here's a return to it:

Federal elections officer disputes Tory defence of donations

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley repudiated Tuesday all the arguments Conservatives have used to justify their party's failure to disclose up to $1.7-million in donations.

snip

Treasury Board President John Baird, the Harper government's point man on ethics, and Conservative party brass have maintained that the fees did not constitute donations because they simply covered the costs of staging the convention, which did not turn a profit.

Mr. Kingsley bluntly demolished that argument.

“Profit's got nothing to do with it,” he told the committee.

Under the Elections Act, Mr. Kingsley said: “A fee paid to attend a political event of a registered party amounts to a contribution to the party except where the attendee receives some tangible benefit having a commercial value.”

snip

Only two weeks ago, Conservative executive director Michael Donison explicitly told the same Senate committee that his party had complied with Mr. Kingsley's request.

“Yes, we have . . . We are dealing with Elections Canada on that matter and we will comply with whatever requirements they have,” Mr. Donison said.

However, Mr. Kingsley told The Canadian Press that he has yet to receive the convention books.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

So what we have there, undeniabley, is a claim from the CPC executive director Michael Donison telling the Senate committee that his party has turned over what Mr. Kingsley asked for. The same committee that Kingsley tells he has not received the books asked for.

And after all that we have this happening:

A senior Tory official said he would not send Kingsley the books because the matter was being handled by the commissioner of Canada elections, who investigates complaints.
"The Liberal party chose to escalate this matter into a complaint to the commissioner," Michael Donison, the party's executive director, said in a letter released yesterday.

"(This) is why Mr. Kingsley's office has not received, and will not be receiving, information from us on this matter as we are dealing with the commissioner's office, exactly where the Liberal party placed the matter."

Oh, well, nah nah boo boo to Mr. Kingsley I guess. Except that:

However, the commissioner reports directly to Kingsley, who stated unequivocally on behalf of Elections Canada that the information was not provided.

And on the same day:

''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada,'' said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications. ''We have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

If they've supplied what was asked for how on earth would the commissioner of Elections Canada rule otherwise?

Sounds like dishonest double-talk. Either you supplied what was asked for or you did not.

watching&waiting · October 1, 2006

QUOTE

''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada,'' said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications. ''We have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

So what part of this very easy to read and understand quote, is giving you problems? Has the elections commissioner ruled otherwise? If so where? I have not seen any ruling at all in this. You once again feel things runs on your schedule, but heres a wake-up call for you: no one but you operates on your schedule. If and when things are needed they will be given to the appropriate people at the appropriate time. That just seems so hard for you to understand.

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada,'' said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications. ''We have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

So what part of this very easy to read and understand quote, is giving you problems? Has the elections commissioner ruled otherwise? If so where? I have not seen any ruling at all in this.

None of it is giving me problems. I understand all of the many comments from the CPC over the last 2.5 months, not just this one.

Do you understand that prior to Sandra Buckler saying that the Chief Electoral Officer stated that they have not supplied what was asked for?

I also understand that the CPC has started a new game of saying they'll answer only to the Commissioner rather than the CEO. the CEO heads Elections Canada and the commish reports to him, so it's a bit fo a silly game. I guess when people are feeling trapped they sometimes behave stupidly, and Harper has certainly done so over this issue.

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

I also understand that the CPC has started a new game of saying they'll answer only to the Commissioner rather than the CEO. the CEO heads Elections Canada and the commish reports to him, so it's a bit fo a silly game. I guess when people are feeling trapped they sometimes behave stupidly, and Harper has certainly done so over this issue.

Why is it a stupid game? Your Liberal bosses sent the complaint to the commissioner. The commissioner contacted the Conservative Party directly. The Conservative Party is dealing with the comissioner.

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

I also understand that the CPC has started a new game of saying they'll answer only to the Commissioner rather than the CEO. the CEO heads Elections Canada and the commish reports to him, so it's a bit fo a silly game. I guess when people are feeling trapped they sometimes behave stupidly, and Harper has certainly done so over this issue.

Why is it a stupid game? Your Liberal bosses sent the complaint to the commissioner. The commissioner contacted the Conservative Party directly. The Conservative Party is dealing with the comissioner.

The Commissioner contacted the Conservative Party directly? I didn't know that, can you show me where that was written please?

Has the Conservative Party handed over the requested books to the Commissioner then? They certainly seem to have said repeadedly that they've complied with the request of the CEO, you agree? So I guess we should assume that they're not playing some silly litteral game in stating that and they've actually given the books to the Commish but the Commish just didn't bother to tell his boss about that little fact before he went in front of the Senate?

Ricki Bobbi · October 1, 2006

can you show me where that was written please?

Look at post #63. One of yours it appears....

gerryhatrick · October 1, 2006

can you show me where that was written please?

Look at post #63. One of yours it appears....

You are making an assumption.

From this:

''This issue is before the commissioner of Elections Canada, we have supplied what they've asked for. If the commissioner of Elections Canada rules otherwise, then we will comply with the ruling.''

You cannot assume the Commisioner contacted them. When she says "we have supplied what they've asked for" she may be referring to the CEO.

Do you think they've handed over the books? Or is she referring to something completely different. I think her language is carefully chosen, and she's not referring to the books from the convention at all.

Like I said, it's turned into a silly game.

Ricki Bobbi · October 2, 2006

You cannot assume the Commisioner contacted them. When she says "we have supplied what they've asked for" she may be referring to the CEO.
Do you think they've handed over the books? Or is she referring to something completely different. I think her language is carefully chosen, and she's not referring to the books from the convention at all.

Like I said, it's turned into a silly game.

Of course you interpreted it in the way that puts the Conservatives in the worst possible light. :rolleyes:

It's only a game because of the way you are twisting everything. Every other poster here said to give it a little time. But you are conducting your witch hunt here and now.

You provide evidence that contintues to conflict with your Harper is evil view of the world...

Your attacks on Harper are the true silly game.

gerryhatrick · October 2, 2006

You cannot assume the Commisioner contacted them. When she says "we have supplied what they've asked for" she may be referring to the CEO.
Do you think they've handed over the books? Or is she referring to something completely different. I think her language is carefully chosen, and she's not referring to the books from the convention at all.

Like I said, it's turned into a silly game.

Of course you interpreted it in the way that puts the Conservatives in the worst possible light.

It's entirely up to the CPC. Don't blame me for being forced to interpret it Ricki. Given the history surrounding this particular issue it's actually the most logical interpretation. Sorry if it's the "worst" as well, but that's not my doing. They've been saying they had complied for over a month now, and since they have not it's obvious they weren't talking about the books that were asked for but rather their interpretation of what's required

It's a very simple matter, and surely you have to agree that the best approach they could have employed would have been immediate cooperation.

Ricki Bobbi · October 2, 2006

It's entirely up to the CPC. Don't blame me for being forced to interpret it Ricki. Given the history surrounding this particular issue it's actually the most logical interpretation. Sorry if it's the "worst" as well, but that's not my doing.

Who forced you to interpret it?

Who's doing is it?

gerryhatrick · October 2, 2006

It's entirely up to the CPC. Don't blame me for being forced to interpret it Ricki. Given the history surrounding this particular issue it's actually the most logical interpretation. Sorry if it's the "worst" as well, but that's not my doing.

Who forced you to interpret it?

Who's doing is it?

Don't be nonsensical please.

In the absense of transparent facts we're foced to interpret things. If you're response is "who forced you to interpret it" you might as well shut off your computer because either you're tired and grumpy or had too much to drink.

Ricki Bobbi · October 2, 2006

In the absense of transparent facts we're foced to interpret things.

And you are forced to interpret things in the way that makes the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada in the worst possible light.

Over and over and over again?! :lol:

You really might be happier at rabble. :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 2, 2006

In the absense of transparent facts we're foced to interpret things.

And you are forced to interpret things in the way that makes the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada in the worst possible light.

No, in the most logical way.

Why do you treat logic and truth as your enemy?

Ricki Bobbi · October 2, 2006

No, in the most logical way.
Why do you treat logic and truth as your enemy?

So the 36.3% of Canadian voters, who chose to vote for the Conservatives were behaving illogically?

Elitist, obstinate and blinded with partisanship. That confirms it Gerry. You are a Liberal. :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 2, 2006

No, in the most logical way.
Why do you treat logic and truth as your enemy?

So the 36.3% of Canadian voters, who chose to vote for the Conservatives were behaving illogically?

That doesn't even make sense Ricki.

How does the logic of a vote cast in the last election equate to the logic of Buckler's words?

Please step up your game a little bit, I shouldn't have to point out idiot stuff like that.