More at Jack's Newswatch. I would love to watch Stephane Dion eat crow.
Update: CTV - Tories threaten lawsuit over 'defamatory' attacks. (H/T National Newswatch)
* * * *
Friday Update: Stephen Taylor - In and Out, Conservatives respond.
Saturday Update: Star - Furor over campaign funds heats up.
Saturday Update: Star - Furor over campaign funds heats up.
49 comments:
Wanna see Dion eat crow?
Soon... just wait... there's more coming...
Really???
hmmm
What's the story?
LS - no story really. The conservatives think the liberals should be sued for daring to allege they broke the law with campaign financing - of course Elections Canada have already made that allegation, but...whatever.
Funny part is when they said Dion should have the courage of his convictions and repeat the allegations outside the House.
You know, like Harper did when he suggesting Bains was a terrorist...
Bains served the conservatives with the same notice of intention. He also served Johnation Kay from the NP.
I'm starting to wonder if the plan is to force an all out Liberal caucus revolt under the guise of trying to force an election.
Of course it is. Why don't they get on with governing?
gayle said: The conservatives think the liberals should be sued for daring to allege they broke the law with campaign financing - of course Elections Canada have already made that allegation, but...whatever
not quite. It was asked to be investigated. Now it's being investigated. Elections Canada hasn't made an allegation of any sort whatsoever. But...whatever.
Don't let those facts get in the way Gayle. Nice try though.
Lemmings unite
tempest in a teapot. Do they have so little legislation they have to pad like this?
So we can add the HoC to the list of institutions under attack?
I think Harper is following the Bin Laden strategy, to draw us into conflicts where we can be bled and weakened. Even if the seat count ends up the same, an election would waste more Liberal powder.
silly little anon - it was my understanding Elections Canada refused to refund the conservatives elections expenses on the basis that they overspent (thereby breaking the law). The conservatives are suing for that money.
But you are correct that EC has not actually "said" the law was broken - they have only implied it by refusing the conservatives' request.
The request for investigation you refer to is a request to EXPAND the currect investigation to include more MP's. But, you know, whatever...
It's the "Vast right wing conspiracy" at work.....
Or maybe it's just that the LPC is in it's death throes!
"Or maybe it's just that the LPC is in it's death throes!"
Oh absolutely, that's gotta be it.
See, the conservatives have threatened to sue, so now it is all over for the liberals...
Or not.
Bains served the conservatives with the same notice of intention. He also served Johnation Kay from the NP.
What ever happened there? Any resolution?
None. From what I understand it simply signals the intent to sue. I would guess the real purpose behind serving this notice was to tell Kay, and some conservatives, to stop suggesting Bains is alligned with terrorists - and they did.
Now if I can indulge in wild speculation that is completely unsubstantiated, I would suggest that perhaps the real purpose behind this move by the conservatives is to try to stop Dion from saying anything about this outside the House. So far the conservatives have managed to deflect most of the attention on this issue by having Harper stay in his seat when Dion asks questions, thereby depriving the media of their soundbite and consequently depriving Dion of attention to this issue. Perhaps the conservatives would like the allegations to stay in the House where they have some control.
But, as I say, that is simple speculation. Obviously I have no insider info to the conservatives :).
Well Gayle, if there's any truth to the allegations, I'm sure Dion will bring them up outside the House, where there is no Parliamentary immunity from charges of libel.
Will the grits have to borrow money to pay for the lawyers? The leadership candidates still owe 3.5 million dollars. Dion himelf owes hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Will the grits have to borrow money to pay for the lawyers?
Exactly. And I heard them criticizing the CPC today for taking Elections Canada to court - that it was using up taxpayers' money. What is it with EC? Aren't they and the LPC one and the same?
From what I understand it simply signals the intent to sue.
-------
Yup it's only scare-mongering. If they had anything, the little connies would have sued....
'Yup it's only scare-mongering'
Well it sure shut up Libloggers.
It must be working...
Well it sure shut up Libloggers.
I noticed that too! Zilch.
This is Harper trying to change the tune - it isn't working.
The Liberals read the allegations from reports, etc. They did not personally accuse - I watched it all.
It's been in the papers folks - is Harper going to sue the papers?
He's wasting our taxpayers dollars trying to get rid of the "scandal that is".
Harper and his bobbleheads read these kinds of things all the time - so, suing Harper would be very expensive indeed - and, it's all in Hansard.
All the Liberals asked is "what and when did Harper know" - that is not an allegation - it's a question.
What fools you pathetic people are.
silly little anon - it was my understanding Elections Canada refused to refund the conservatives elections expenses on the basis that they overspent (thereby breaking the law).
I know that was your understanding. It is wrong. Now your understanding accurately reflects the facts: Chief Electoral Officer Marc Maynard has not accused any of the candidates or agents of breaking the law.
Slice it any way you want. Those are the facts, and you're wrong to say otherwise. Since the facts don't work in your favour, I fully expect you to use terms like "silly little anon" in an effort to appear more credible than I. I should point but you're just as anonymous as I am by using an account with no information linked to it. But....whatever.
"I would suggest that perhaps the real purpose behind this move by the conservatives is to try to stop Dion from saying anything about this outside the House."
See, now this is my problem with partisan politics.
To a partisan, it's only the other side who has something to hide- the letter of intent issued to shut up their guys and deflect attention because there is something there.
But in a similar sit (bains), the letter of intent was issued because Kay and the CPC were tarnishing a good man's name.
Of course the idea that the letter of intent with the bains incident had nothing to do with the idea that perhaps the LPC wanted people to shut up the other side and deflect, because there might be something there. And of course, the letter of intent issued by the CPC only had nefarious intentions behind it. It could not possibly be because the LPC was dragging the CPC's reputation thru the mud.
I hate partisan politics
I think everybody is missing the most important point here. The Liberals have used blatent libel and slander about the Consevative Party, its candidates, and its members in past campaigns as part of its scare tactics. This action gives them notice that they may be risking legal action if they repeat this strategy in the future. Since this is not during an election campaign, this notice can not be dismissed as just a campaign trick. Especially if the notice is followed up with an actual lawsuit.
There may also be one or other more investigations going on right now, or being contemplated, into certain suspected irregularities concerning the finances of the last election.
I should point but you're just as anonymous as I am by using an account with no information linked to it. But....whatever.
No, you are wrong. You call your self "sorry gayle you're wrong". The one she was talking with was called "anonymous". Two different people. Unless of course, you admit to sock puppeting.
That is the difference. Pick a name, and use it consistently.
if there's any truth to the allegations, I'm sure Dion will bring them up outside the House, where there is no Parliamentary immunity from charges of libel.
Only the lawyers win in libel cases. We have parliamentary immunity for a reason.
They are still doing the Bin Laden strategy to bleed the Liberals. This "take it outside" is just more of the Bin Laden strategy.
You'd think they would just govern.
But they need to engineer their defeat to have an election, before whatever investigations going on get too far.
No, you are wrong. You call your self "sorry gayle you're wrong". The one she was talking with was called "anonymous".
Funny, that, considering she addressed what I had said and not the message to which you refer. if you wish to squabble over something of such minute substance or value, go here. fact is, gayle is wrong, either purposely or inadvertently. But, she is wrong.
Don't let those facts get in the way Gayle. Nice try though.
That is who she called "silly little anon".
So, will you continue to comment as "sorry gayle you're wrong", even when she hasn't even commented, or will you also sock puppet as "anonymous"?
You can sneer at "squabble over something of such minute substance or value", but of course the whole topic of this post was about a squabble of minute substance or value for the Parliament of Canada to be wasting its time on.
Will you stop sock puppeting and use a consistent name?
You can accuse me of using a dozen identities if if makes you sleep better at night. It doesn't change the fact that you and gayle are unable to defend your positions and have taken to trying to discredit me for being no more anonymous than you guys are. But....whatever.
Take it outside, boys. ;)
Hey, L.S. No chance that you might be a sock puppet for Gayle or vice versa, eh?
Just kidding!
have taken to trying to discredit me for being no more anonymous than you guys are
No, you are the one who claimed you are no more anonymous than gayle, who uses a consistent name.
You made that claim because you got insulted when gayle called some anonymous commenter "silly little anon". You thought it was you. Why you thought that, when she clearly said "anon".If you are sock puppeting, then it was you.
Your jumping to conclusions illustrates the problems caused by your own sock puppeting.
Since you do appear to sock puppet, you probably assume that everyone else does too. I am not gayle, yet you say "It doesn't change the fact that you and gayle are unable to defend your positions".
What position of mine am I unable to defend? Maybe you should state the position I presented first, since I don't see anything except rhetorical questions from me in this thread, hardly a "position" to defend or not.
Will you please stop sock puppeting and use a consistent name?
Ha, I had most of this comment entered and had to do something else, and didn't refresh before posting it.
Aside from the anonymous "Heil Harper" a long time ago, I do not post under anonymous, and I post here under no other name than liberal supporter, occasionally liberal suppotrer.
"Heil Harper"?
Aha! So that was you!!
Nah, I'm just kidding. I know you wouldn't do the sock-puppetry thing.
"silly little anon - it was my understanding Elections Canada refused to refund the conservatives elections expenses on the basis that they overspent (thereby breaking the law).
I know that was your understanding. It is wrong. Now your understanding accurately reflects the facts: Chief Electoral Officer Marc Maynard has not accused any of the candidates or agents of breaking the law."
My understanding was in fact correct - or at least you have not attempted to correct my understanding.
Or are you suggesting the EC refused to refund money to the conservatives for some reason other than the fact the conservatives overspent on elections spending?
You see, one cannot "overspend" unless there are regulations governing the expense. Here those regulations are contained in legislation, and any violation of that legislation would mean they are breaking the law.
I think you are confusing "law-breaking" with criminal acts. Canada has more laws than the criminal code.
liberal supporter (or suppotrer) ;)
here's what I see has happened:
gayle addressed somebody she called 'anon', and then proceeded to rebut what I had said.
you interpreted this as her rebutting silly rhetoric from someone commenting under 'anonymous'. i interpreted that her addressing me, as I am also commenting with an anonymous identity (as are you, for the record). That, and the fact that she addressed points that I had made, and not anything by 'anonymous'. kinda like how when people write a letter. the information is directed to a specific party, regardless of the nickname name proceeding the letter. i know this might be a difficult concept for one to grasp in an afternoon, but it works like this - the contents of the message were directed at me, as per my interpretation, and obviously contrary to yours.
I know that was a lot, but stick with me here. make sure you understand he above. read it twice if you need to. and then proceed reading below.
************************
if you think i'm both of those people and you get your jollies from that, i hope it makes you feel better and all the power to you even. However, your inanity is exposed if you think that someone would want to comment as two anonymous people in the same conversation. neither 'anonymous' nor i shared any views or commented on the same parts of the conversation, let alone asserting the others unfailing righteousness (the most common reason for sock puppeting).
but i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think you're sock puppeting, nor do i think you're stupid, but nor do i really care about either. i think your specious reasons for popping a hate-on for me are because you perceived gayle to be addressing a different party than I perceived her to do.
and, pardon me. i took your lack of anything substance in this thread to reflect a lack of ability to formulate or defend positions. this was also aided by your use of 'liberallogic' - or faulty logic, if you prefer - to come to an incorrect conclusion that I am also someone else.
however, i will thank you. you've provided some unintentional humour on an otherwise dull Friday in the drivel you admittedly and accurately label as 'rhetoric'. keep it up - same time and place need friday?
fine, I admit it. i'm actually 'anonymous', 'liberal supporter', AND this identity. I like to start arguments with myself online to cover for not having a job. looks like i'm too swift for, well, me!
heh, look at that, liberal supporter. gayle is back and continuing the discussion with me. would you like me to serve your crow the same way as Dion's?
anyway gayle, here's a healthy dose of reality for you. link.
"Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has refused election reimbursements for ad costs being claimed by up to 67 candidates, but has not accused any of the candidates or agents of breaking the law."
I cannot say what his reasons are for holding them back, and neither can you. What we do know is if after the investigation is completed and the funds are still held back, he will have to offer a reason.
it's much easier to build a house on a solid foundation of earth. likewise, it's much easier to build an argument with a solid foundation of the facts. think about it.
Steve Janke has an update. The issue seems to be one of jobs.
Boy, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Interestingly though, the topic in QP today was totally different.
Are you going to stick with "sorry gayle you're wrong" or not?
LS - of course s/he will not - which is why I called him/her silly little anon and shall continue to do so - it is my way of distinguishing between all the various anons who post.
I will happily call him/her by something else, so long as s/he chooses an identity and sticks with it (ie, if s/he wishes to post as "SGYAW" from here on in, I will happily use that moniker. Time will tell...
As for your "rebuttal" SGYAW - I stand by my post. He does not have to SAY they are breaking the law for that to be true. He merely has to say he has refused on the basis they overspent. That alone means he believes they have broken the law - you know, by OVERSPENDING.
For example - the conservatives can say the liberal defamed them, without saying the liberals broke the law. We all know that is what they mean, however.
don't worry about it gayle. facts and logic never meant much to liberals
Hey, guys. I think this is going nowhere. In fact, since it's really Matt behind all these different nom de plumes, maybe we should just let him talk to himself. ;)
Why doesn't everybody take a look at the EDA financial statements posted at Elections Canada. Certain people may want to retract some of their posts.
If that is the case, Matt is very multi-faceted, unlike Möbius, who is one sided.
liberal supporter said...
If that is the case, Matt is very multi-faceted, unlike Möbius, who is one sided.
Wise guy, eh, with your obscure references!
Nyuk, nyuk!
"In fact, since it's really Matt behind all these different nom de plumes, maybe we should just let him talk to himself."
Thanks Joanne
That is why I use "silly little anon", but I like your method of outing better!
Have a great weekend - I will be back on Monday.
Have a great weekend - I will be back on Monday.
You have a great weekend too Gayle. BTW, you know I was kidding about Matt, right? He would be the last person in the world to 'sock puppet'.
Post a Comment