Ricki Bobbi Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Holy ****, you are serious waste of time and space. Whatever, enjoy your man crush on Harper, with your double standard for what is right and wrong. So instead of providing proof you swear at me and question my sexuality? Good work. You sir, epitomize the inellectual honesty of the Canadian Left. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Who's Doing What? Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Holy ****, you are serious waste of time and space. Whatever, enjoy your man crush on Harper, with your double standard for what is right and wrong. So instead of providing proof you swear at me and question my sexuality? Good work. You sir, epitomize the inellectual honesty of the Canadian Left. Proof? They ****ing admitted to not disclosing donations and other funds. what else do you F'n want? Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Ricki Bobbi Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Proof? They ****ing admitted to not disclosing donations and other funds. what else do you F'n want? They admitted to disclosing the donations and other funds incorrectly. What I would want is for you to stop swearing and deal with this situation honestly. Something tells me I am not going to get what I want. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Who's Doing What? Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 Proof? They ****ing admitted to not disclosing donations and other funds. what else do you F'n want? They admitted to disclosing the donations and other funds incorrectly. What I would want is for you to stop swearing and deal with this situation honestly. Something tells me I am not going to get what I want. Let me re-post part of the article for you since you are obviously having comprehension issues. In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates. Unreported????? Undisclosed????? Get real. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Ricki Bobbi Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates. Unreported????? Undisclosed????? Get real. Re-classified. i.e. it was classified incorrectly. It was reported. Keep trying, this isn't Gomery. Or even close. At least you have grown up a little and quit swearing. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Who's Doing What? Posted December 30, 2006 Report Posted December 30, 2006 In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates. Unreported????? Undisclosed????? Get real. Re-classified. i.e. it was classified incorrectly. It was reported. LMFAO They just admitted to not reporting it. Time to come out of the oven 'cause you're done. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Catchme Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 In the revised report, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention," disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue," and an additional $1.45 million in "other expenses." The report does not explain what constitutes other revenue or other expenses.Moreover, the party reports almost $700,000 in previously undisclosed transfers from riding associations, presumably accounting for ridings that helped subsidize the cost of attending the Montreal policy convention for their delegates. Unreported????? Undisclosed????? Get real. Re-classified. i.e. it was classified incorrectly. It was reported. They just admitted to not reporting it. They sure did just admit to not reporting it, as they had to, but really the largest portion we are speaking of, is not really known to be comprised of what and whom as it is "UNDISCLOSED" We only know that 700k was conference funds that were "UNDISCLOSED" but are now "DISCLOSED". Now just who did the other "UNDISCLOSED" funding come from? Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Saturn Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Proof? They ****ing admitted to not disclosing donations and other funds. what else do you F'n want? Who's Doing What?, responding to Ricki's rude requests for info is a waste of effort and space. Please do not allow him to massacre another thread. Thx. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Who's Doing What?, responding to Ricki's rude requests for info is a waste of effort and space. Please do not allow him to massacre another thread. Thx. Saturn if you have an issue with me deal with me directly. Fine if you are here to attack the PM and government but at least provide evidence when you do it. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Why don't you just give it up already. The Conservatives tried to get away with hiding 3.5 million dollars and got caught. By announcing it openly. Yes, definitely a good way to get "caught". They denied any wrong doing for almost a year. Just how the hell is that "announcing it openly"? They openly announced what they did because they had an interpretation of the rules which said that money given them for other than election purposes did not count as election donations - which, imo, seems quite reasonable. They never made any attempt to deny it or hide it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 The CPC may not be Boy Scouts but they're hardly alone in breaking the Election Law. Any guess on what the Liberal/French crew is up to on any given day? This is just it. There really is no difference between the two parties, except one of them just ran on an election platform of accoutnability and ethics. I find it ironic you can't even spell accountability. Certainly you can't recognize it or understand it. There is no suggestion that this misinterpretation of the rules cost Canadian taxpayers any money - on the contrary, it saved them money. And no real suggestion the Tories even profited over it, as the donations would have been theirs regardless. I find it sad, and a good indicator of a lacking personality, that someone has nothing better to do than harp on someones typo. And I find it telling that people come on here and expect their opinions to be respected when their writing is filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Either they're not literate enough to write properly or they're too lazy to write properly. Both reflect on the value strangers should place on their opinions. It cost tax payers that went to the convention money. Taxpayers? You mean members of the Conservative Party of Canada? You're upset that members of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't properly get their tax receipts? Sure, there's no profit when they hide 3.5 million dollars. Hiding it by openly announcing it, you mean? Like holy crap man, open your freaking eyes! If it didn't serve their interests, or profit them in some way, why try to hide the money in the first place? Because they had a different opinion about the necessity of declaring that income as election donations. I don't know if you've ever looked at a law book but everything about it is immensely complex, arcane, and open to multiple interpretations. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 They denied any wrong doing for almost a year. Just how the hell is that "announcing it openly"? They certainly didn't say: "Our mistake. We are correcting it right away". Instead, they tried to change the law retroactively. What they did was say "This is our interpretation, which seems quite reasonable. If this interpretation is in doubt then we ought to change the law to make it clearer." Personally, I don't see a problem with their interpretation. If money is given to them and spent on a convention then it's not going to election expenses and shouldn't be counted. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 So you really believe that Liberal corruption is a concern for voters but CPC corruption is unimportant? Nice world of double standards you live in. Talking about double standards... mass murderer = jaywalker. They're exactly the same! Yes they are! There's NO difference at all!!!! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Trying to hide the money was because it was over the amount allowed by LAW. Clearly, as in so many other things, you are confused about the election laws. There is ultimately no limit as to how much money they can collect under THE LAW. There are individual spending limits, and in a very few cases, because of their misinterpreting the law, a few people wound up giving over their limit. But we're talking about chump change here, maybe a couple of thousand dollars. Had they declared the money paid for the convention, a few people would have had to give a few hundred dollars less. That's all. 3.5 million in scammed money before they took office. 'nuff said. Clearly, honesty is not a personal value you have much respect for. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Holy ****, you are serious waste of time and space. Whatever, enjoy your man crush on Harper, with your double standard for what is right and wrong. Interesting, for someone on your side of the political divide, to keep making these homophobic insinuations. Do you have a problem with homosexuals? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 What they did was say "This is our interpretation, which seems quite reasonable. If this interpretation is in doubt then we ought to change the law to make it clearer." Personally, I don't see a problem with their interpretation. If money is given to them and spent on a convention then it's not going to election expenses and shouldn't be counted. They knew what the law was before. They had abided by it before under the Alliance and the PCs. If they wished to test that interpretation, they only had to go before Elections Canada and ask. Instead they went ahead and once Elections Canada said they had interpreted it wrong, they should have corrected it. They didn't. The Conservatives then tried to change the law retroactively. All of this reeks of the same arrogance they accuse others of. Quote
Argus Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 What they did was say "This is our interpretation, which seems quite reasonable. If this interpretation is in doubt then we ought to change the law to make it clearer." Personally, I don't see a problem with their interpretation. If money is given to them and spent on a convention then it's not going to election expenses and shouldn't be counted. They knew what the law was before. New organization, new people. Laws are open to interpretation. That's how we get laws changed. One lawyer says yes, one says no, it goes to a judge, and sometimes the judge, or the appeals judge, or the supremes, say yes, and sometimes no. Law is a complicated business. Now they've declared an extra $1.4 million in donations, and an extra $1.4 million in offsetting expenses, which basically makes this an exercise in crossing "i"s and dotting "t"s. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 New organization, new people. Laws are open to interpretation. That's how we get laws changed. One lawyer says yes, one says no, it goes to a judge, and sometimes the judge, or the appeals judge, or the supremes, say yes, and sometimes no. Law is a complicated business. Now they've declared an extra $1.4 million in donations, and an extra $1.4 million in offsetting expenses, which basically makes this an exercise in crossing "i"s and dotting "t"s. They could have asked Elections Canada about the convention which is what the other parties did. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 They knew what the law was before. They had abided by it before under the Alliance and the PCs. If they wished to test that interpretation, they only had to go before Elections Canada and ask. Instead they went ahead and once Elections Canada said they had interpreted it wrong, they should have corrected it. They didn't.The Conservatives then tried to change the law retroactively. All of this reeks of the same arrogance they accuse others of. The issue came up in the spring of 2006. It has been corrected within nine months. Your actions reek of close-mindedness and harper-hating. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
jbg Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 You are quite correct in your assesment saturn, just because they they told everyone they were trying to scam their donations they think somehow they are not scamming? And here they are even telling a lie with insisting they told so they couldn't have been scammming. That is hilarious, for a year they insisted they did nothing wrong, now of course they have had to admit to it finally. Even though they are trying hard not too. Do you speak English? No, he speaks Canadian. Different spelling and grammar rules apply. 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).
jbg Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Good post on alll accounts. Trying to hide the money was because it was over the amount allowed by LAW. Hence the reason why they tried to change the law retroactively, kinda like georgie did in the USA, only they didn't succeed here. Which is why now a year later they have had to fess up, they had no choice, the only thing they could do was to try and time it when they thought people were not watching.3.5 million in scammed money before they took office. 'nuff said. Can you explain, since I'm naive I guess, how a policy convention equals an election expense. Did the GG drop the writ just before March 17, 2005? Was an election scheduled? Would Elections Canada's website have said "General Election"? 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).
Fortunata Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 You are quite correct in your assesment saturn, just because they they told everyone they were trying to scam their donations they think somehow they are not scamming? And here they are even telling a lie with insisting they told so they couldn't have been scammming. That is hilarious, for a year they insisted they did nothing wrong, now of course they have had to admit to it finally. Even though they are trying hard not too. Do you speak English? No, he speaks Canadian. Different spelling and grammar rules apply. If you don't like speaking Canadian on a Canadian forum please feel free to join an American speaking forum. Quote
Saturn Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 Can you explain, since I'm naive I guess, how a policy convention equals an election expense. Did the GG drop the writ just before March 17, 2005? Was an election scheduled? Would Elections Canada's website have said "General Election"? A policy convention is one of the biggest advertising events a political party can possibly stage. It is an essential part of the activities of a political party and all party activities are funded by donations. Consequently, the funding for a policy convention falls under the funding rules for political parties. Those rules require that all party funding is properly recorded and reported and is subject to certain limitations, including a $5000 limit on individual donations and the $0 limit on corporate/organization donations. The CPC failed to report the $3.5M in funding for its policy convention. Individuals were allowed to exceed the $5,000 limit on donations. Corporations and organizations were allowed to donate. Therefore, the CPC broke the law on 3 fronts: -failed to report funding -allowed illegal donations by individuals -allowed illegal donations by organizations. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 The CPC failed to report the $3.5M in funding for its policy convention. Individuals were allowed to exceed the $5,000 limit on donations. Corporations and organizations were allowed to donate. Therefore, the CPC broke the law on 3 fronts:-failed to report funding -allowed illegal donations by individuals -allowed illegal donations by organizations. Are you a lawyer? Do you have any proof for these accusations? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Who's Doing What? Posted December 31, 2006 Report Posted December 31, 2006 And I find it telling that people come on here and expect their opinions to be respected when their writing is filled with grammatical and spelling errors. Either they're not literate enough to write properly or they're too lazy to write properly. Both reflect on the value strangers should place on their opinions. I'll remember to jump all over you the next typo I see. Totally lame. You think a person has to be perfect gramatically to have a valid idea or point of view. Get Real! Taxpayers? You mean members of the Conservative Party of Canada? You're upset that members of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't properly get their tax receipts?Cheating is cheating. Ofcourse unless you're are a Consevative supporter and the Conservatives are the ones cheating. Hiding it by openly announcing it, you mean?They never reported it. Because they had a different opinion about the necessity of declaring that income as election donations. I don't know if you've ever looked at a law book but everything about it is immensely complex, arcane, and open to multiple interpretations. Not a different oppinion, a blatant disregard. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
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.