Stockwell Day SHOULD Resign

[geoffrey]

If they are indeed considering a new investigation (which is silly from the details we know, but we may not know all the details), then yes, I've changed my mind, Day should be stepping aside.

[Figleaf]

If they are indeed considering a new investigation (which is silly from the details we know, but we may not know all the details), then yes, I've changed my mind, Day should be stepping aside.

Good on you for having the capability to change your mind when you see fit. (No sarcasm here -- it's something not everyone can do.)

But look, the fax said quite clearly that Hart got a benefit and in his view it was a quid pro quo. And Hart himself hasn't denied the contents of the fax. I really can't see how it is possible to not have an investigation.

And for the record, I don't think Stock has done a bad job as minister, or that if he's innocent he should have to stay out of cabinet afterward.

[geoffrey]

Good on you for having the capability to change your mind when you see fit. (No sarcasm here -- it's something not everyone can do.)

I come to rational, independant conclusions, it's hard enough for me to commit to eating what I've made for dinner let alone a political party.

But look, the fax said quite clearly that Hart got a benefit and in his view it was a quid pro quo. And Hart himself hasn't denied the contents of the fax. I really can't see how it is possible to not have an investigation.

I think this is the trouble though. Has this payment not already been investigated... in fact, has the settlement not already occured (I think it has)? New proof of an action that has openly taken place and was found to be legit is hardly reasonable grounds to turf a minister.

Now if this proof is truly a new spin on the whole thing, then sure, Day needs to step down. I'll trust his judgement, it'll look really bad later if any influence on the outcome is found.

And for the record, I don't think Stock has done a bad job as minister, or that if he's innocent he should have to stay out of cabinet afterward.

I think he's been a 'suprising' bright spot out of the cabinet.

[Canuck E Stan]

I really can't see how it is possible to not have an investigation.

And for the record, I don't think Stock has done a bad job as minister, or that if he's innocent he should have to stay out of cabinet afterward.

Maybe in your great wisdom you should contact the RCMP and give them all this advice about investigating Day.

This forum has heard you run circles on your opinion of this issue that has not even been decided to be investigated.

Nice of you to allow Stock to continue as minister if he's found innocent of anything that might or might not be invesigated.

How Liberal of you

[Figleaf]

But look, the fax said quite clearly that Hart got a benefit and in his view it was a quid pro quo. And Hart himself hasn't denied the contents of the fax. I really can't see how it is possible to not have an investigation.

I think this is the trouble though. Has this payment not already been investigated... in fact, has the settlement not already occured (I think it has)? New proof of an action that has openly taken place and was found to be legit is hardly reasonable grounds to turf a minister.

My understanding of the situation is that the initial RCMP investigation did not reflect the contents of the fax. The info in the fax constitutes new information which sheds a new an troubling light on the situation.

And for the record, I don't think Stock has done a bad job as minister, or that if he's innocent he should have to stay out of cabinet afterward.

I think he's been a 'suprising' bright spot out of the cabinet.

I was no fan of Stock for PM, but I agree, his administration of portfolios has been quite professional and clearly conscientious. All the more reason I hope he handles this challenge honourably.

[Canuck E Stan]

All the more reason I hope he handles this challenge honourably.

...and you as well.

[Figleaf]

Maybe in your great wisdom you should contact the RCMP and give them all this advice about investigating Day. ...

Ah, come on. You know what the fax says ... you can't seriously pretend it's not an issue.

Nice of you to allow Stock to continue as minister if he's found innocent of anything that might or might not be invesigated.

Again -- Ah, come on. You know as well as I do that I simply meant that I have no specific objection to Stockwell as a minister apart from this particular challenge.

...and you as well.

There was never a doubt.

[Canuck E Stan]

Maybe in your great wisdom you should contact the RCMP and give them all this advice about investigating Day. ...

Ah, come on. You know what the fax says ... you can't seriously pretend it's not an issue.

Nice of you to allow Stock to continue as minister if he's found innocent of anything that might or might not be invesigated.

Again, ah, come on. You know as well as I do that I simply meant that I have no specific objection to Stockwell as a minister apart from this particular challenge.

I personaly don't really give a shit about the fax or if or if not, he is guilty, with your badgering on and on, the issue does gets lost.

I do resent the fact that you seem to be judge and jury over this issue,demanding he step aside before a decision is made, and DO NOT for some reason, think the RCMP should be the ones making the FINAL decision about whether this issue should or should not be investigated.

What is your problem with not letting THEM decide if it is worthy of investigating? And.....if it is investigated.....why you can't let THEM decide the outcome? And wait until it happens.

Somehow I feel if they decide to NOT investigate and if they do investigate, and DO NOT find him at fault we will not hear the end from you.

[Figleaf]

I do resent the fact that you seem to be judge and jury over this issue,demanding he step aside before a decision is made, ...

I don't care in the least what you 'resent'. I've never claimed to be the judge. I'm calling for an INVESTIGATION. And it's not me, it's the principles of parliament and the nature of conflicts of interest that say Day should step aside.

What is your problem with not letting THEM decide if it is worthy of investigating? And.....if it is investigated.....why you can't let THEM decide the outcome? And wait until it happens.

Cripes, what is so hard for you to get about this? DAY can't lead a credible investigation into HIMSELF.

Somehow I feel if they decide to NOT investigate and if they do investigate, and DO NOT find him at fault we will not hear the end from you.

Pure blathershite.

[Michael Bluth]

Somehow I feel if they decide to NOT investigate and if they do investigate, and DO NOT find him at fault we will not hear the end from you.

Of course we won't. Not until the next election then other issues will pop up on both sides...

[Figleaf]

Well, I guess Stock will be stepping down something this week, finally.

After all, how long can he contemptuously spurn parliamentary tradition in the face of these disturbing allegations?

Surely even a man as smart as Day can see he can't stay on under these circumstances.

[Michael Bluth]

Well, I guess Stock will be stepping down something this week, finally.

Because?

[Figleaf]

Well, I guess Stock will be stepping down something this week, finally.

Because?

Didn't you read the rest of that post? ... BECAUSE of the disturbing allegations of political corruption around how Day's seat became availalbe.

[ScottSA]

I've never claimed to be the judge. I'm calling for an INVESTIGATION. And it's not me, it's the principles of parliament and the nature of conflicts of interest that say Day should step aside.

Tell us about the "principles of Parliament" that demand Day resign. What is in the "nature of conflicts" that demands he resign? You mean everytime there are allegations, the object of those allegations ought to "step aside"? There would be no Liberal Party if that were the case, what with mass resignations every time one of them dared pop his or her head above ground. Do please clarify these natures and principles.

[BubberMiley]

Not enough for Harper haters. They get a surge of delight i talking trash about Harper.

Who are these Harper haters I keep hearing about from the remedial debaters?

[Michael Bluth]

Who are these Harper haters I keep hearing about from the remedial debaters?

They know who they are...

[BubberMiley]

Who are these Harper haters I keep hearing about from the remedial debaters?

You think countering an argument with "Harper hater" constitutes real debate? The U.S. politics Bush apologists have nothing left up their sleeves than "You're a Bush hater." I never, ever saw a Liberal counter an argument with "Martin hater." I think it just shows the vast intellectual vacuum and unwillingness to even acknowledge reality among the Right these days.

[Michael Bluth]

You think countering an argument with "Harper hater" constitutes real debate? The U.S. politics Bush apologists have nothing left up their sleeves than "You're a Bush hater." I never, ever saw a Liberal counter an argument with "Martin hater." I think it just shows the vast intellectual vacuum and unwillingness to even acknowledge reality among the Right these days.

So your question was merely a jumping off point for this little rant?

Seems like somebody is here looking for a fight.

[BubberMiley]

Seems like somebody is here looking for a fight.

That's the only reason I come here.

[scribblet]

I think I've got the right thread, read this !!! Ethics in politics (or lack thereof ) theft by conversion

I think the Liberals have shot themselves in the foot while cutting off their nose to spite their faces.

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/ or this one for the full version

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/f...cover_story.pdf

“The law does expect you not to detain, not to keep it, even temporarily. If you form the intent to return it to the authorities for turning it over to the rightful owner right away and you do so, then you haven’t

committed an offence. But detaining it for any time is called ‘theft by conversion’—converting something to yours at least temporarily belonging to somebody else to your knowledge,” he says.

Unfortunately, that’s what the Liberal Party of Canada did as one of its first acts as Her Opposition (OLO) knew they had the files. For 14 months they held onto them—30 boxes full of personnel evaluations, private correspondence, newspaper clippings and who knows what else, some of it dating back to the Canadian Alliance and even the Reform party years in the 1990s—and kept quiet about it while the Liberal Research Bureau in the OLO rifled through them looking for dirt.

The fact that the Liberals would stoop to such depths, resorting...

[Figleaf]

I think I've got the right thread, read this !!! Ethics in politics (or lack thereof ) theft by conversion

...

Unfortunately, that’s what the Liberal Party of Canada did as one of its first acts as Her Opposition (OLO) knew they had the files.

Well, Scribby, good for you. You've made an argument that has some content regarding Holland. Theft by conversion... good try. Maybe the RCMP will even agree.

(Of course if they charge him with Stock still at the helm there will certainly be a perception of bias. One more reason Stock should step aside. Those of you keen to nail Holland will see that to acheive that, Stock cannot lead the charge.)

For 14 months they held onto them...

Whoa! There's no evidence they knew the boxes were even there for that long. There's no evidence they formed an intention to hold onto them at any specific point in time. There is no evidence that they even attempted 'conversion' at that is defined. It is POSSIBLE that they did, and so, maybe an investigation might be applicable, but it's totally without basis to reach conclusions at this point.

[Michael Bluth]

Whoa! There's no evidence they knew the boxes were even there for that long. There's no evidence they formed an intention to hold onto them at any specific point in time. There is no evidence that they even attempted 'conversion' at that is defined. It is POSSIBLE that they did, and so, maybe an investigation might be applicable, but it's totally without basis to reach conclusions at this point.

That's right. There's no evidence that the boxes left in the OLO by the Conservatives 14 months after they left the office were there the entire time.

It's equally plausible the Conservatives snuck into the OLO and left the boxes after the election.

[Fortunata]

"There's no evidence"......."equally plausible" ....... EXACTLY why we need an investigation into this whole thing. Thinking people want to know what, no matter what that what is. And Day cannot lead an investigation into himself; even the Cons would know that that would stink.

[Michael Bluth]

"There's no evidence"......."equally plausible" ....... EXACTLY why we need an investigation into this whole thing. Thinking people want to know what, no matter what that what is. And Day cannot lead an investigation into himself; even the Cons would know that that would stink.

The RCMP is not the only investigative body in the country.

"Equally plausible" that the Conservatives broke into the OLO to leave the boxes? Boy Rita you sure think real smart.

[gc1765]

"Equally plausible" that the Conservatives broke into the OLO to leave the boxes? Boy Rita you sure think real smart.

Ummm if you read Figleaf's post, you'll see he says "There's no evidence they knew the boxes were even there for that long". There's a big difference between the boxes being there, and Holland knowing the boxes were there. Before you insult someone else's intelligence, you might want to read Figleaf's post again.