(*) Also called window. Military. Modern armed forces use chaff to distract radar-guided missiles from their targets. Strips of metal foil dropped by an aircraft to confuse enemy radar by creating false blips.
Dean Del Mastro is nothing more than a false blip.
69 comments:
Dean Del Mastro is nothing more than a false blip.
I thought at first you wrote "fat blimp."
Yup. Chaff. And the media will report on it dutifully.
In other news, Toronto Center MP Bob Rae will move a motion at committee on Thursday:
November 5th, 2009 marks the anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald resigning over the Pacific Railway scandal. The Standing committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics calls on the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a full audit of the Pacific Railway Scandal to clarify for Canadians who received a bribe of $360,000.
I see the internal polls are showing Conservatives that Canadians are sick of their gross mishandling of H1N1 despite a year warning to get ready, sick of their pork favouratism, sick of them using taxpayer money to fund their campaign war chest, sick of them lying and preventing a legitimate inquiry into detainees, sick of their record setting spending and deficit without a plan, etc.
So what else to do but go DefCon1 - start talking about an issue that occurred a decade and a half ago, three prime ministers ago and 5 Liberal leaders ago.
Smacks of a sudden, and frankly very surprising, desperation.
Frankly, I didn't think the Liberal accusations were hitting home as much as they obviously are.
So what else to do but go DefCon1 - start talking about an issue that occurred a decade and a half ago, three prime ministers ago and 5 Liberal leaders ago.
And also left many unanswered questions about which 12Liberal candidates that received stolen tax payer money through the Sponsorship Scandal during the election campaign in question are Liberal MPs today. Now they'll be answered.
No, the Tories aren't desperate; merely keeping the powder in that bazooka dry. But I'm betting that there are some Liberal MPs and various party apparatchiks that will be knocking knees tonight. :D
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
Isn't that right Ti? ;D
Boy. someone is dreaming, trying to get 12 MPS involved..that did not come out or were mentioned in the trial.That is kind of funny. I guess Dion was one.
Those Cons are really worried.
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
That's like the expression "Well, I'm pissing off everyone, so I must be doing something right."
Did you know that those things aren't true?
Did you know that those things aren't true?
During the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, Cote testified that he received $120,000 in $100 bills from the executive director of the party's Quebec wing. He distributed that money to 12 Liberal candidates in the 1997 federal election.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070124/dion_organizer_070124/20070124?hub=TopStories
Speaking of truth, now we'll get to know for sure one way or the other if ANY of those 12 are Members of Parliament today.
Welcome to the present Mr. Donolo. :D
Candidates does not mean they got into parliament!
Cool . . . let's see. Donolo the new Savior of the LPC & Iggy's career was Jean Cruton's Comms guy when ADSCAM happened. And Kinsella's name was written in Gomery's report a few times.
So it would be so nice to see Donolo, sitting in front of the Committee seeking answers to the $43 million that "went missing" by the LPC or its operatives, while Kinsella waits in the wings to swear under oath he wasn't involved in the missing $43 million.
It would be great TV. Craig Oliver would be apoplectic trying to find ways to defend his party.
60 billion in dollars in debt at least by the end of this fiscal.
Thanks, Conservatives. You've impoverished Canadians, yet again.
Next time, it's all coming out the hides of Albertans.
The Cons tried the same dirty thing in 2008. Harper has spent more of our money than that, for partisan purposes.
At least a 100 million.
Makes Adscam look like a dime-store shoplift.
...and of course, the 60 billion dollar deficit.
*tsk tsk tsk*
Candidates does not mean they got into parliament!
What an utterly petty distinction. What a weak justification. In other words, some of those Liberal candidates may have been election losers, so it doesn't matter that they might have received stolen money for their individual election campaigns. LOL Whatever.
In the 1997 election the Liberals won 155 seats. It is hardly a stretch to think that maybe a couple of those 12 MPs in question won their ridings at the time. Maybe one or two could very well be MPs today. If they are not, they will still have uncomfortable and inconvenient questions to answer, which will cause no shortage of humiliation for the Liberal party. And all it takes is one, one Liberal MP to be in Ignatieff's Quebec caucus right now whose very presence on that score to cause him and the LPC in Quebec (and in the ROC) the most grief he's experienced yet.
You Liberals love to blather on and on about how dead Adscam/Sponsorship is. But something ALWAYS comes back to bite you in the ass. And until Canadians get all the answers they need as to who benifitted from this stolen money, where and when, these inconvenient little snags will pop up at the most inopportun time. :D
Is it 12 or 21 Lib candidates that got the stolen cash?
Montreal gazette says 21;
Cote was in charge fo 21 ridings, but ctv reports 12 ridings got the envelopes stuffed with cash.
If there are still Liberals MPs who were a part of adscam they need to be held to account. You Liberals should be onside with that, these people were the start of a down fall that still has not been fixed with in the Liberal party. The Liberal party itself should help and try to get to the bottom of it and rid themselves of theses thieves, if they are stiil in the party. The Conservatives recent behaviour does not justify the Liberals past criminal behaviour.
Makes Adscam look like a dime-store shoplift.
In other words, we all know the Liberals stole the money, so quit talking about it already cause, well, look at this other stuff over here....
--
Oh, and what happened to,
Did you know that those things aren't true?
Oops...
-
In other words, we all know the Liberals stole the money, so quit talking about it already cause, well, look at this other stuff over here....
Now why would I ever suggest people stop talking about it?
That's impossible. That's all Conservatives have.
...on top of the 100 million they've stolen from taxpayers to fund their political campaign and the billions they've shoveled out to friendlies...
...*tsk tsk tsk*. Makes Adscam look...well, like when Wilson slips a mickey of Five Star into her purse at the Fort McMurray The Liquor Barn the day before payday.
The Liberal party itself should help and try to get to the bottom of it and rid themselves of theses thieves...
Gee, wasn't Liberal PM Paul Martin's 80 million dollar commission of inquiry enough? Or do you want the Conservatives to spend even more millions...
...on top of the 100 million they've stolen from taxpayers to fund their political campaign and the billions they've shoveled out to friendlies?
"...on top of the 100 million they've stolen from taxpayers to fund their political campaign and the billions they've shoveled out to friendlies?"
Political pork barreling is some thing that has been done from every PM all the way back to and including Sir John A.. Thats what politics is in this country and there has been a Liberal government a lot more often than Conservative. Do you really want to add it all up and account for inflation? Because I do not think the Liberals are going to do so good? Why would Canadians throw out a government for someone else that they KNOW is going to do the same thing? I think your holding the Conservatives to a higher standard than the Liberals. Stealing tax payers money and laundering back into your political party is criminal, pork barreling is just the crap we are stuck with in this country.
If you know of any politician in this country that does not stoop to that level let me know.
In that case austin, I assume you do not support another investigation into Adscam. Apparently it's all business as usual. Why do so many cons have their knickers in a knot?
Well, I'm not living in the past. I'm living in the here and now.
Besides, does it mean that since all politicians deal in pork-barrelling, we have no choice but to accept it?
I can't think of anything we can do about it. I am angry that the Conservatives are doing this, maybe even more than some of you because I voted for them. Its always a kick in the junk when your guy stoops to the status quo.
There is nothing about Iggy that makes me think he can even run the country at this point, he has stumbled so much just running his party. He needs to go and regroup get a strategy and a platform because one thing I think we will both agree on is this country is better off when it has at least one choice.
We have cabinet government and a Parliament. We don't just elect a Supreme Leader. Well, Conservatives do, but I digress...
The Liberals' bench strength is orders better than the Tory Tiny Tot No-Talent Brigade, which, as I remarked earlier, is impoverishing us.
The PMs power in this country is just a hair short of supreme leader. The PM appoints everyone and the party just toes the line.
Who do the Liberals have with talent? Enlighten me because I can not think of one, maybe Goodale but that remains to be seen.
The PM appoints everyone and the party just toes the line.
That's now Conservatives work.
The PM has too much power but in the right hands, in can work. In the hands of Herr Stephen H***er, it's a different story.
Are you suggesting that the Liberals didn't stack the Senate with thier own? How about the Supreme Court? And regardless of party, when the leader says how to vote the whole party votes that way. Unless its a private members bill then it is usually a free vote.
These Cons are no Joe Clark Progressive Conservatives, as they bring shame to the name. What kind of minds do thy have, dwelling and dwelling in the past.They shouldn't have to do that, if they truly had nothing to be ashamed of.Harper was the one that said he was going to put all that behind, and his government would be so clean,open and accountable...what in hell happened?
Good one..Del Maestro is going to introduce a motion on the Sponsorship Scandal, and something about 43 million !
Are you suggesting that the Liberals didn't stack the Senate with thier own? How about the Supreme Court? And regardless of party, when the leader says how to vote the whole party votes that way. Unless its a private members bill then it is usually a free vote.
Didn't Herr Stephen H***er promise to do things differently?
Who the fcuk is this "austin" wipe? I feel ill...
$48 million siphoned off by corrupt Quebec officials, to promote federalism in Quebec of whom a number of players have been held sent to jail, or a $700 million tax break given to Quebecers by the CPC to buy their vote (failing miserably), and running the economy using the Albertan financial management model and putting us billions in the red _before_ the financial crises hit.
The CPC savants are in full gear, led by the used car salesman...
Good luck with that.
Heh. I thought it was "fat blimp" until I read Ti-Guys first comment.
Maybe you should change it, BCL.
Austin, who are you , my evil twin?
"Are you suggesting that the Liberals didn't stack the Senate with thier own? How about the Supreme Court?"
Th Senate is a political institution. Of course the liberals appointed liberals - just like conservatives appoint conservatives.
The SCC is non-political. I would like you to point to just one decision from that court that is based on partisanship and which cannot be justified by the application of legal principles. Try, just try, to base your comments on fact rather than your own bias and conservative talking points.
By the way, the Chief Justice was appointed to the SCC by Mulroney, and promoted to CJ by Chretien.
"Th Senate is a political institution. Of course the liberals appointed liberals - just like conservatives appoint conservatives."
I know, that was a response to Ti when he suggested that only the Conservatives operate like that.
Do you really believe a PM would appoint or recomend someone to the SCC who does not believe in similar ideology? It would be a little counter productive wouldn't it? Try, just try, to base your comments on logic rather than your Liberal bias.
"Do you really believe a PM would appoint or recomend someone to the SCC who does not believe in similar ideology?"
Courts follow the law. Ideology has noththing to do with it. Therefore, PM's are not in a position to appoint based on ideology. No reputable judge is ideological and therefore it would not be possible to determine said ideology from their decisions.
Unless, of course, you have some example of a decision from the SCC that was based on ideology and not solid legal principles. I noticed you avoided that one.
Perhaps an investigation should go into Del Mastro's little attempt at land deals with private developers.
I think it should be invesitaged.
Motion anyone?
Let's not forget. The "In and Out" court case is about to resume. They want to deflect attention away from the possibility that we could see cabinet ministers hauled out in handcuffs.
"Unless, of course, you have some example of a decision from the SCC that was based on ideology and not solid legal principles. I noticed you avoided that one."
You'll have to forgive the half-wit that's populated Liblogs under my name...clearly he still doesn't understand how things work in Canada...
I never said that the SCC is partisan in itself, so no I know of no ruling based on ideology. But a Conservative government is not going to appoint a judge to the SCC who is known for more lenient or liberal rulings and vise versa.
Your giving way to much credit to politicians if you think that they would not involve thier partisan beliefs in all thier appointments.
I must ask, what is with some of you to personally attack someone who does not follow your partisan beliefs? Are you that insecure about your own beliefs that you can not hold them up to the light of debate? Like you Austin can you not have a rational conversation without using terms like "half-wit"?
"But a Conservative government is not going to appoint a judge to the SCC who is known for more lenient or liberal rulings and vise versa."
What is a "liberal" ruling. Do you have an example?
Maybe you missed that whole thing about basing rulings on the law.
Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are talking about. Both of Harper's SCC appointments were of well respected lawyers/judges. They were appointed because of their abilities, like every other SCC judge who came before them.
We do not have a polticized court system. What concerns me are people like you who clearly want that to change.
I must ask, what is with some of you to personally attack someone who does not follow your partisan beliefs?
Austin, we've become unaccustomed to Conservatives dialoguing in good faith. Most of us believe that *that* doesn't even exist on the Right anymore and that any effort on the part of Conservatives at conversation is in fact just a ruse to derail conversation, to troll (like Fred, Michael, Wilson and Platty have done above) or to demonstrate that the rest of us are evil or stupid or both.
I personally believe it's a waste of time for partisans to talk to each unless it's to correct a point of fact.
"What is a "liberal" ruling. Do you have an example?"
There is a wide range of sentences that can be given on almost every crime. There are also a lot of "well respected lawyers/judges" and each party does do research of rulings that these judges make to make a list of acceptable and unacceptable judges for the SCC in thier opinion. If you do not want to believe that there is a level of partisan politics in the selection proccess of SCC members thats your choice but I am done arguing it.
"I personally believe it's a waste of time for partisans to talk to each unless it's to correct a point of fact."
I am not partisan, believe me if Iggy comes out with some good ideas I'll vote for him. I do not hold either party to a higher standard, do I want to find out who stole our money in adscam and if they are still MPs? Absolutely. Do I want to replace this Conservative government for thier pork barreling with a capable replacement? Absolutely, I just do not see one.
"There is a wide range of sentences that can be given on almost every crime."
Yes. What's your point?
Do you have some evidence that the sentence imposed depends on the party who appointed the judge? See, that is what Harper has been trying to sell people like you for a long time. For once I would love to see people like you ask him to substantiate the allegation rather than simply lap it up.
The real reason you are "done" with this conversation is that you are basing your comments on your own biases, and not on fact. I am calling you on that, and you are failing to defend your position.
Do I want to replace this Conservative government for thier pork barreling with a capable replacement? Absolutely, I just do not see one.
Aren't you interested in a replacement that has a proven track record of managing the country's finances instead of keeping one that has a proven track record of given us the exact opposite of what they promise?
Note: Note just broken promises, but the exact opposite.. Historic levels of opacity instead of transparency, criminal levels of irresponsibility instead of accountability, biggest budgets ever instead of lower spending, patronage and light-speed stacking of the Senate instead of reform and massive deficits instead of surpluses decried not long ago as over-taxation.
...and a scandal in misappropriating public funds for partisan purposes that makes Adscam look like a dime-store shoplift. And I'm not talking about pork-barrelling here; I'm talking about the Conservatives using public funds for partisan advertising and propaganda. Over a 100 million dollars.
How am I basing my opinion on my biases when I am saying each party does it equally? If you want to be naive enough to believe that politicans, who base all of thier decisions on partisan beliefs, suddenly find it in thier conscience to make an appointment strictly on someone's ability go for it. I am in awe that there is someone who does not believe Conservatives like some judges(ones that usually give out harsher sentences) and Liberals like other judges(ones who usually take into consideration childhood and things like that), I am literally in shock.
I am not failing to defend my position, your just not getting it. That and I am not going through archives of past rulings from judges who are currently sitting on the SCC, your just trying to push it to that point ignoring everything I say until I do. Believe what you want.
Ti, yes the Liberals have a better track record, but I do not see a Paul Martin FM anywhere in the Liberal party. I see a party that is having finacial problems itself.
"How am I basing my opinion on my biases when I am saying each party does it equally?"
Because you believe the judiciary is politicized - like Harper. Judges are not accountable to our elected representatives, nor should they be. They are accountable to the law, and to each other.
Again, provide some proof that the sentence imposed depends on the party who appointed the judge. Simply asserting something does not make it magically come true.
Parties do appoint judges as patronage appointments, however first the judges have to be screened by a committee of their peers, including lawyers from the federal government, provincial government and provincial bar association. That screening process has been created to ensure people who are appointed have the credentials - the most important being the ability to apply the law fairly notwithstanding any pre-existing political bias. Harper is politicizing this process by removing the vote from the judiciary in the selection process, and giving it to a CPC party hack and to the police.
In Alberta, federally appointed judges must also be approved by lawyers working for the province. This means when the LPC were appointing judges in Alberta, the PCP had a say in that. Pray, tell me where the bias exists when a right wing socially conservative government whose elected members often go off on "soft" judges have a say in who is appointed?
"I am in awe that there is someone who does not believe Conservatives like some judges(ones that usually give out harsher sentences) and Liberals like other judges(ones who usually take into consideration childhood and things like that), I am literally in shock."
Sadly, I am not in shock that someone could be so totally misinformed about this that they would believe something so utterly false.
Though I love the way you excuse yourself from actually having to provide evidence this is true.
The majority of the judges on the SCC were appointed before 2004 when that process you so speak of was implemented by Martin. Prior to that they were appointed by the PM.
"Parties do appoint judges as patronage appointments,"
Thank you. Why are we arguing.
The process I spoke of was implemented by Mulroney in the 1980's.
And we are arguing because you confuse patronage appointments with partisan rulings.
When did I say the SCC makes partisan rulings? I said there appointments are based on partisan beliefs of the party that appoints them.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-appointment-process
It was Paul Martin in 2004.
I was referring to the appointment of judges in the provinces, not to the SCC.
As for the partisan rulings - if you do not believe this, then why on earth would you think the sentences imposed by that person would have any impact whatsoever in the decision to elevate him or her to the SCC.
Patronage appointments to the bench are common at the provincial level, but they do not exist at the SCC level.
"As for the partisan rulings - if you do not believe this, then why on earth would you think the sentences imposed by that person would have any impact whatsoever in the decision to elevate him or her to the SCC."
Because thats how they get into the good books of a party.
"Patronage appointments to the bench are common at the provincial level, but they do not exist at the SCC level."
Now it is harder but the judges are still selected from a list the PM comes up with. But prior to 2004, the Liberals had 13 or so years were they just appointed them so I ask what is wrong with what I said;
"Are you suggesting that the Liberals didn't stack the Senate with thier own? How about the Supreme Court?"
Because you said they stacked the court with "their own". There are very few people who qualify for appointment to the SCC.
Do you have any evidence at all of any SCC appointment that was based on being a good party man/woman?
In any event, no one gets into the good books of a party because of their decisions. You get into their good books because you do something that benefits the party - like donate or fundraise. Once appointed Judges must be non-pitical and cannot donate or volunteer. It is incredible naïve to believe parties actually take the time to monitor their decisions in order to see if the sentences they impose are harsh enough.
It's quite naive to believe that a party would not review a judges decisions before recomending or appointing them.
No its not. For the upteenth time, do you have any evidence that judges appointed by different political parties impose different sentences or arrive at different decisions?
Obviously you think liberal appointed judges impose lower sentences. I would like you to prove that.
I said the that the parties appoint thier own, even you said that they make patronage appointments. I ask, how does someone patronagely(I am not sure if thats even a word but I am using it anyway) appoint someone who is not thier own?
You are saying two different things.
Patronage appointments are done on the basis of service to the party. How does sentencing and other judicial decisions have anything to do with service to the party?
In any event, there is zero evidence of patronage appointments at the SCC. With lower court judges you can look to their pre-judicial life and often find a connection to the party that appointed them. Not so when you get to the SCC.
Unless, of course, you finally want to provide some evidence of your assertions.
You like side stepping questions too, see we are not completely different.
Let me clarify one thing. I never said that the SCC makes biased or unjust decisions but I do believe that a party takes into consideration past decisions of judges before appointing them. I could go spend a couple hours and come up with some examples and then you could go and spend a couple of hours to find some to counter mine. I am not going to do that(you can thank me later) because if it could be proven 100% we wouldn't be having this debate. So just like almost everything in politics it comes down to what you are going to believe.
Post a Comment