"You don’t just send Ian Brodie into the middle of what is a bit of a crime scene for capricious reasons. You don’t just send him lightly.'And why did Brodie turn up?
'The fear is no longer about the in-and-out stuff,' the official said."
Conservatives party operatives and those in government interviewed for this story said they are trying to determine what classified material Elections Canada might have seized — and worrying that it could be released in a court case.
After two days of unfettered access to the party headquarters, Elections Canada made replicas of all their computer hard drives, carted off 17 boxes of documents and copied all of the party’s e-mails, Tory officials said.
9 comments:
From your link:
As the party cries bias at Elections Canada, several Conservatives interviewed Monday said there was near-unanimous support to continue the battle over the in-and-out affair.
"We take a very aggressive approach to politics. I haven’t heard anybody say we did wrong," said one government official.
These doughy dweebs and their confusion between aggression, assertiveness and lying.
And the rest of us (well, rest of *you*, mostly) welcoming and polite and uncensorious and offering to do all kinds of research to challenge their lies instead of insisting they back up their assertions or retract them.
I hope this stops soon, or I'll have to run for goddamn office myself. And who the hell wants to be a politician?
Out of the greatest respect for ti-guy,
who has rightfully accused me of not sufficiently linking to sources,
I present to you the following quote with a link, further to my previous assertions that the truth that all parties are doing this, and that it is now coming out:
"A former national director for the New Democratic Party says the Tory transactions sounds like normal practice that's been followed by all parties for decades.
Robin Sears, the NDP's national director from 1974 to 1981, says central parties have always transferred money to help out local candidates and they've always asked local candidates to help pay a share of national advertising."
Here:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national
/080422/n0422136A.html
Interesting that my observance of ti-guy's complaint (about not linking), show's that ti-guy's charge (of my "lying") was false and that my assertions are once again bang on.
Unintended consequences I guess.
Some guy who was a politician in 1981 agrees with Harper
And that equates to "proof"
Intelligent people know that actual proof requires more than counting people who agree with you
Proof is not determined by popular opinion.
Try again biff.
You might want to start with whether or not this was actually illegal in 1981, and in particular, whether it was legal to do this in order to circumvent the spending cap.
But Gayle, that authority was relied on by the hallowed institution of the CBC? They're unreliable now?
Yikes, the pillars of the left ARE crumbling, aren't they.
As for the authority/expert, you (on the left) really should produce a chart on which experts are considered "good" and which are "bad".
Though that does sound like a lot of work.
Let's just stick with the original formula:
agrees with your view - insightful and highly valued
disagrees with you - worthless hack.
There. Nice and easy.
So no proof then.
The biff cannot back his theories and resorts to bashing liberals.
And twists the fact a news organization quotes someone into suggesting same news organization agrees with what that person is saying.
Such a shocking turn of events.
Aside from your asserting some odd courtroom like standards of proof in a discussion forum (which incidentally do not appear to apply to you or those who agree with you),
do YOU believe the other parties don't transfer funds between national and riding offices?
And if not, why do you think the other parties have not come out and said so, notwithstanding the direct statements from the Cons on this point?
(I apologize for not having this comment transcribed through an authorized court reporting service - pragmatics and all).
Hey, I've got an idea?
Let's even apply your rigid standards to my points shall we.
Do you know what an implied omission is?
Or omission by silence?
Go get your handy Sopinka on Evidence (you being a legal begal and all).
Did you know that an actual court (not a court of public opinion which obviously doesn't require the same rigid rules of "evidence" that you require when the issue pertains to the Liberals)
may (and indeed has) drawn an inference from silence in the face of accusation which experience suggests would require a denial.
A rule of evidence based on common sense really.
Here, I'll give you an example (sheesh who do I think I'm talking to, obviously someone of your superior knowlege would know this, but just for the sake of argument):
I'm seen alone with the nightly office deposits. The next day it's been found stolen. In a conversation someone states to me that they believe I stole the money. I just sit there, and don't say anything, and then walk away.
An adverse inference may be drawn. Of course it can be rebutted by other evidence, like I was choking on something and had to leave, or I have hearing loss ect.
Now. Let's apply that to the court of public opinion where the CPC has made statements that cry out for a Liberal denial.
A categorical denial, would be most particularly helpful, given that politicians are notorious for giving themselves wiggle room.
I'm sure you have a bang up answer for me, as you no doubt have already contemplated this and can easily respond (in a real way, and not some insult laden brush aside, of course).
"You might want to start with whether or not this was actually illegal in 1981, and in particular, whether it was legal to do this in order to circumvent the spending cap."
Your attempted diversion is noted.
To "pull a Brodie"
Post a Comment