Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Can you provide a source please? Brian clearly said that being a crimminal was "a mistake" - so I guess he was instantly rehiblitated - he had better not do it again - besides - we don't need to make and example of a former prime minister when we have Lord Black as a scape goat who will take all the sins of our old anglo guard and wander off into the desert never to be seen again. Canadians know and understand that dear Brian is a crook and it is a so what attitude - we all know that our rich and elite have been quietly dealing with arms merchants for decades, for a little extra pin money - There was one vision in my head - I would have loved to be the fly on the wall in the Malroney household - when one of the kids or the wife needed some pocket money - I can see it now - Brian yells from the upstairs bed room - "It's in the drawer in the filing cabinet behind the furnace in the basement, you know where it is, take what you need" - I can see it now - a big fat paper back stuffed with hundreds of hundreds - all for spending - what a life - what a country - every mans dream - no bank just a big pile of real nice paper money - gets me aroused thinking about it - guess Brian got horney for the the cash also - real money is traditionally very seductive....mmmmmm. Quote
jdobbin Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Did I miss the referendum? Or was it a jointly authored letter to the editor? (Of, let me guess, The Western Standard...) I think some Tories are thinking that 52% of Canadians who said in a poll that they don't want an inquiry is probably reason enough to dismiss a possibly recommendation from Johnston for an inquiry. Quote
jdobbin Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 This might help.A new poll suggests most Canadians don't want a public inquiry into Brian Mulroney's business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber, despite their deep misgivings about the former prime minister's truthfulness and the propriety of his actions. Which is probably why Harper will dismiss an inquiry if Johnston recommends one. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 This might help. Naw. Remember, the claim was that Canadians have stated very clearly that they don't want an inquiry. Who could be so uncharitable as to think such a clear and unambiguous statement was based on one poll showing that 52% disfavored an inquiry? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Naw. Remember, the claim was that Canadians have stated very clearly that they don't want an inquiry. Who could be so uncharitable as to think such a clear and unambiguous statement was based on one poll showing that 52% disfavored an inquiry? That would be like being charge for murder and being out on bail - then dashing into the court room to set a date and blurting out to the judge - "You honour- I just took a poll out side in the hall and they said that they don't want me tried - so see you late" - You can say what you want - conduct a poll - adjust the poll - or just plain lie and put for a false and misleading press release. In realty - no one really cares about Malroney or other poorly behaved people in public life - The public just does not want to waste valuable real estate in the mind for such things - in other words it's an insult to Malroney that there will be no inquiry - we just don't give a crap - and he's a bore. Quote
Michael Bluth Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Who could be so uncharitable as to think such a clear and unambiguous statement was based on one poll showing that 52% disfavored an inquiry? No, because only 32% of Canadians favour an inquiry. Nevertheless, the poll found that only 32 per cent of those surveyed wanted to see a public inquiry delve into the details of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
guyser Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 This thread keeps on going....but I have to say.... WAS Brian Mulroney a crook........ what do you mean Was? Shouldnt it read "Brian Mulroney Is....."? carry on... Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 This thread keeps on going....but I have to say....WAS Brian Mulroney a crook........ what do you mean Was? Shouldnt it read "Brian Mulroney Is....."? carry on... It's impossible that our Canadian establishment would install a crook as Prime Minister. If that was the case that would mean all of Ottawa and all of the old guys on Bay Street would be crooks also..say it isn't so! Wonder what happened to the few pounds of coke found on one of Paul Martin's ships? Not to mention that short lived bliperooney news clip about the container from mainland China that contained enough stuff to make 20 million dozes of ecstacy...funny - never heard one faint cry of protest from our administrators in those regards....and that woman that worked for the liberals - prior the big scandal - she lost millions of dollars to who knows where - and shall we mention how I watched during a hearing at the court of appeal - the joker - who was being extadited to the USA because he knew a little to much about Enron - the list is endless - maybe Canada was possessed by the ghost of Richard Nixon - I can hear the clicking of ruby red slippers from here "I am not a crook".....guess there is no place like home - just wish the crooks would share the wealth - wish I was a crook. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 No, because only 32% of Canadians favour an inquiry. So, the "no opinion" crowd have "very clearly stated" that they don't want an inquiry? Words have meaning, you see. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 So, the "no opinion" crowd have "very clearly stated" that they don't want an inquiry?Words have meaning, you see. YEP the ones that don't care don't care if we find crackers in the bed - as long as they have a warm blanket and Malroney is not stealing the covers. It may be a case of burn out for Canadians - they know an inquirey will cost them money - and Malroney has already taken to much from the public purse - remember he did win the law suit. It much like the pig farmer hooker killer in Vancouver - the trial cost millions and millions - I did not make any money on that - the public did not - but tons of black robers and assoicates are now going to send their kids to fine schools because of the pig farmer killer - now they want to try him again and generate another 70 million - people are not as stupid as you assume - why we have to keep feeding the rich is beyond me...let Malroney disappear with what he has got - why give him more via an inquirey - he may even write a book called "Freedom Fighter" - damn - that's Conrads idea...speaking of Mr. Black - wonder if he will be allowed his quilted silk bath robe? Quote
capricorn Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 So, the "no opinion" crowd have "very clearly stated" that they don't want an inquiry? It does not appear that those polled were told a potential inquiry would cost upward of $30M. Perhaps the "no opinion" crowd would have given an answer had they know the cost attached to an inquiry. Perhaps too a good chunk of the "no opinion" crowd may not even know who Mulroney or Schreiber are. Who knows. The fact remains, 52% of Canadians don't want an inquiry. Those on this board that want an inquiry want it for no other reason than the off chance that Mulroney or Harper will be embarrassed in the process. That's pretty high priced entertainment. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 It does not appear that those polled were told a potential inquiry would cost upward of $30M. Perhaps the "no opinion" crowd would have given an answer had they know the cost attached to an inquiry. Perhaps too a good chunk of the "no opinion" crowd may not even know who Mulroney or Schreiber are. Who knows. The fact remains, 52% of Canadians don't want an inquiry.Those on this board that want an inquiry want it for no other reason than the off chance that Mulroney or Harper will be embarrassed in the process. That's pretty high priced entertainment. Get the boys a big cake and a dancing girl - and a case of cheap beer..that should do it. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) It does not appear that those polled were told a potential inquiry would cost upward of $30M. Heck, there might be all sorts of different, non-actual, circumstances under which it would have been true to say that Canadians have clearly stated that they don't want an inquiry. Those on this board that want an inquiry want it for no other reason than the off chance that Mulroney or Harper will be embarrassed in the process. Such a shame I can't link to a Professor X "mind-reading" pic, here... Anyhow, maybe they think that a country serious about the rule of law should investigate evidence that a Prime Minister sold influence or lied under oath. It's a difficult possibility to rule out, however strong a feeling you get as you attempt telekinet... televangel... what's the word? telepathy, that's it. Edited January 10, 2008 by Kitchener Quote
capricorn Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Heck, there might be all sorts of different, non-actual, circumstances under which it would have been true to say that Canadians have clearly stated that they don't want an inquiry. Good try at dodging my point that Canadians care about the cost of an inquiry that they think is unnecessary. They're not as stupid as some politicians think they are. Such a shame I can't link to a Professor X "mind-reading" pic, here... You've been a member at MLW for a grand total of 15 days. Have you read all 600+ posts here? I doubt it so it's no wonder you don't know what I'm talking about. Anyhow, maybe they think that a country serious about the rule of law should investigate evidence that a Prime Minister sold influence or lied under oath. By "they" you mean Canadians? Well, 52% don't think there is anything to investigate. It's a difficult possibility to rule out, however strong a feeling you get as you attempt telekinet... televangel... what's the word? telepathy, that's it. I tremble at the thought you've got me all figured out. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
jdobbin Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Good try at dodging my point that Canadians care about the cost of an inquiry that they think is unnecessary. They're not as stupid as some politicians think they are.By "they" you mean Canadians? Well, 52% don't think there is anything to investigate. I tremble at the thought you've got me all figured out. I don't think it was the cost of the inquiry that they were concerned about. The poll seemed to indicate that an inquiry was not necessary because many thought Mulroney was already guilt. In any event, I thought Harper said he was not going to be ruled by polls. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Good try at dodging my point that Canadians care about the cost of an inquiry that they think is unnecessary. Staying on topic is not dodging. In fact, it's sort of the opposite of dodging. Recall: I questioned whether 52% in one poll amounts to "Canadians" very clearly stating that they don't want an inquiry. Your subsequent conjecture that some different result might have occurred if people had been asked a different question in a different poll is not a response to my point about the poor fit between the actual evidence and the actual claim. I see now that your conjecture too has been elevated to another fact about "Canadians", no qualification. You've been a member at MLW for a grand total of 15 days. Have you read all 600+ posts here? I doubt it so it's no wonder you don't know what I'm talking about. In which of those posts do the endorsers of an inquiry explain that they want an inquiry merely to embarrass the government? A link will do fine, thanks. For my part, I find that it's quite enough to make an effort to actually read the posts to which I respond. It's an approach I recommend to all and sundry, excellent for avoiding irrelevant wanderings that culminate in misguided charges of dodging. By "they" you mean Canadians? No. I mean the posters who want an inquiry. Maybe they think the rule of law matters. Maybe they think that investigating evidence of corruption is as important now as it was waaayyyy back 3 years ago, when the Gomery inquiry was set up. These are hypotheses you don't seem to have ruled out very carefully, on your way to the "They just want to embarrass the current government!" view. I tremble at the thought you've got me all figured out. Okay. I wish I could claim surprise at your responding to something I didn't say. Edited January 10, 2008 by Kitchener Quote
Shakeyhands Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 No, because only 32% of Canadians favour an inquiry. Just as an aside... What was the percentage of Canadians that voted for the CPC in order to hand them a minority government? Just curious, I bet its around this number. Hell, if the poll numbers were in the high 30's thats equivalent to what the CPC needs to form a majority and a mandate. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
jbg Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 No. I mean the posters who want an inquiry. Maybe they think the rule of law matters. Maybe they think that investigating evidence of corruption is as important now as it was waaayyyy back 3 years ago, when the Gomery inquiry was set up. These are hypotheses you don't seem to have ruled out very carefully, on your way to the "They just want to embarrass the current government!" view.The difference is that one was a current matter and one is now ancient history. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 The difference is that one was a current matter and one is now ancient history. You can't live in the past and Malroney is not current - he is the past - his career has ended and he and his group are now aged and satisfied in their plunder. Every group that takes power enriches themselves. In time we will look back at the Harper government and find that they are not without political and economic sin. The days when the principle of service was flourishing and men actually cared about their fellows seems to be over - welcome to the brave new world where their is no loyalty to the family (nation) that grants comfort and wealth - Ingrates are the norm. Quote
capricorn Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 In which of those posts do the endorsers of an inquiry explain that they want an inquiry merely to embarrass the government? A link will do fine, thanks. You must be joking. But just in case you're not the answer is no. If you're that curious read the whole thread for yourself. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 The difference is that one was a current matter and one is now ancient history. Remarkable. 1996 = current matter 1993, 1994 = ancient history Who knew? Quote
Kitchener Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 You must be joking. But just in case you're not the answer is no. If you're that curious read the whole thread for yourself. No, I'm not joking. But I'm not entirely serious either. Naturally I knew that you had no good evidence for your generalized aspersion on the motives of the 23 people (minimum) who voted for an inquiry on this thread. This would have been completely obvious, even were I not one of those who called for an inquiry on this thread. (I needn't resort to mindreading to know that I quite clearly did not say, and do not think, that the aim is to make something stick to the current government.) So, fair cop, I wasn't seriously expecting you to give evidence that anyone could tell does not exist. Quote
capricorn Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 No, I'm not joking. But I'm not entirely serious either. You're of two minds? This must confuse you at times. Naturally I knew that you had no good evidence for your generalized aspersion on the motives of the 23 people (minimum) who voted for an inquiry on this thread. You use the term "evidence" often in your posts. On MLW, it is quite alright for posters to voice opinions and conclusions based on observations. Adults don't always cry for evidence when the opinions and conclusions of others don't fit their own views. (I needn't resort to mindreading to know that I quite clearly did not say, and do not think, that the aim is to make something stick to the current government.) It's comforting that don't have to resort to mindreading to read your own mind. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Remarkable.1996 = current matter 1993, 1994 = ancient history Who knew? You go out an rob a bank on thursday and you are ammune from arrest on monday...cos' it's "ancient history" - who cares - yesterday did not exist nor did the holocaust...this is super quick revisionism - infact instant historical editiing.. The guy said in simple words...I am a crook and It was a mistake because I got caught - well at least he was honest. -----for a crook and maybe for that I see an Order Of Canada medal waiting for him. NICE - kind of reminds me of the young offenders act that gives the kids a "second chance". Seeing Malroney's maturity level was that of a 12 year old boy that would steal your hockey cards - I say give the old boy a second chance and maybe remove his name from the history books - seeing the young old offenders should not be publically identified. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 11, 2008 Report Posted January 11, 2008 You're of two minds? This must confuse you at times. Oh, I'm frequently of two minds. But that's different from using an unanswerable question to point out someone's silly generalized smear. You use the term "evidence" often in your posts. On MLW, it is quite alright for posters to voice opinions and conclusions based on observations. Adults don't always cry for evidence when the opinions and conclusions of others don't fit their own views. Well, it's good thing I've only been crying on the inside, then. As to thinking that factual claims go better when they're not unwarranted, I plead nolo contendere. Dang me! If you don't -- surprise, surprise -- have any reasoning to offer for your claim that the inquiry-supporters here are only interested in sticking it to the current government, and if having no evidence for one's claims is just A-OK here at MLW, to your way of thinking... then why the thrashing about? If you'd said, right at the outset, "I don't have any evidence to offer for my claim. I just believe it, for reasons I can't or would rather not give," then I guarantee it would have ended right there. No problem, as far as I'm concerned! Of course, if you don't actually want to say that straight out, that would make sense of the gee-hawing around with strangely ironic charges of evasion, and now this intriguing thesis that asking for evidence is somehow a problem, while impugning others' motives without evidence is just a quaint local tradition. It's comforting that don't have to resort to mindreading to read your own mind. Indeed. It was comforting to know that your claim was not merely unreasonable, but definitely false. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.