[Thanos]

It's innocent until proven guilty but odds are this perv will hang onto his seat like grim death the same way Brazeau and some of the other ne'er-do-wells that have been appointed to that place usually do when they get caught doing something repellent or illegal. With full pay too.

[stratos]

DrCaleb wrote:

stratos wrote:

I'm a bit suppressed that there is no criminal charge. Can he not be charged with child porn seeing as he had her taking off her clothes via skype while under the age of 18?

The age of consent in Canada is 16. It's between 16 and 18 in the US, depending on the state.

There was an investigation, but he did nothing illegal. Just immoral, and lied about it.

Okay .... still it is nauseating to say the least

[CDN_PATRIOT]

BeaverFever wrote:

Surely you're not equating what Sajjan did with what this guy did???!

Meredith disrespected his office and misused his influence.

Sajjan disrespected his office and misused his influence.

If you weren't so blinded by the Liberal 'values' you claim to have, you'd see that all of this GOES WELL BEYOND PARTISIANSHIP. But you're a hack, so you won't because you can't.

Both of these idiots should lose their jobs, regardless of how sorry they are.

Both of these idiots don't give a shit about anything but themselves.

-J.

[BeaverFever]

CDN_PATRIOT wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

Surely you're not equating what Sajjan did with what this guy did???!

Meredith disrespected his office and misused his influence.

Sajjan disrespected his office and misused his influence.

If you weren't so blinded by the Liberal 'values' you claim to have, you'd see that all of this GOES WELL BEYOND PARTISIANSHIP. But you're a hack, so you won't because you can't.

Both of these idiots should lose their jobs, regardless of how sorry they are.

Both of these idiots don't give a shit about anything but themselves.

-J.

You're pathetic if you can't tell the difference between the two.

Here's a simple test that anyone could try, no matter where you work: go out and do what Sajjan did, you will still have a job. Now go do what Meredith did, guaranteed you will be fired.

And just curious- how did Sajjan "misuse his influence"?

[stratos]

Quote:

Here's a simple test that anyone could try, no matter where you work: go out and do what Sajjan did, you will still have a job. Now go do what Meredith did, guaranteed you will be fired.

Don't even have to test this I've been a part of such a thing. Started a rumor a few years back that the Paper was going to be sold to a real-estate tycoon and the building demolished and a new condo put up. A week later they had to have a all departments meeting to deny it. Never got into trouble.

We've had 2 security guards fired sense then for .... sexual misconduct. Wont go into details on either one.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever wrote:

Here's a simple test that anyone could try, no matter where you work: go out and do what Sajjan did, you will still have a job. Now go do what Meredith did, guaranteed you will be fired.

And just curious- how did Sajjan "misuse his influence"?

Sajjan made a false claim that he was the architect of a military operation when he was not.

Everyone involved in the planning of that operation now knows the man is full of shit and they will now question everything he says, claims, writes, or orders.

He's lost the credibility to command a military.

Leave him in the job if you want that won't change the fact that he no longer has any credible authority to command.

[peck420]

BeaverFever wrote:

You're pathetic if you can't tell the difference between the two.

Here's a simple test that anyone could try, no matter where you work: go out and do what Sajjan did, you will still have a job. Now go do what Meredith did, guaranteed you will be fired.

Lying about your credentials and/or work history will net you an immediate termination.

Using company resources to clean up a self made moral mess will also net you an immediate termination.

My stance on both situations are the same...termination of duties.

It is time to take your partisan googles off.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb wrote:

stratos wrote:

I'm a bit suppressed that there is no criminal charge. Can he not be charged with child porn seeing as he had her taking off her clothes via skype while under the age of 18?

The age of consent in Canada is 16. It's between 16 and 18 in the US, depending on the state.

There was an investigation, but he did nothing illegal. Just immoral, and lied about it.

Which should be enough to get the asshole shit canned. It would just be nicer if he took himself out after issuing an apology for the harm he has caused.

But, since the Senate is looking at throwing this guy out must mean they're throwing him out based on the fact he lied about his actions because apparently he did nothing illegal. So, how can some people on the left scream about his removal while defending the Minister of National Defense claiming he did nothing illegal and just made a mistake?

It seems it's all about perspective. Neither of these morally bankrupt people did anything illegal but both of them lied which means that someones partisan sense of what's morally acceptable means that only one of them did something reprehensible enough to be removed from office.

Talk about a double standard.

Both these people should be standing in the unemployment lines looking for their next job so they can pay back the people they defrauded into thinking they were working for their well being.

[raydan]

Quote:

...“moral failing”

Yeah, I've had a few of those.

[BartSimpson]

raydan wrote:

Quote:

...“moral failing”

Yeah, I've had a few of those.

Ray, I suspect that your moral failings are mostly along the lines of not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, removing the tag from a mattress, and not calling your mom on Sunday afternoons.

[raydan]

I don't care about a Senator going after some young nookie, nothing illegal was done although some would question the morality. What REALLY bothers me was that this was a married pastor.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson wrote:

Hmm.

Seems you folks aren't so boring after all.

http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/8-c ... one-maybe/

Quote:

3. 1977: Margaret Trudeau and the Rolling Stones. Margaret Trudeau spent her sixth wedding anniversary without her prime minister husband, instead partying with the Rolling Stones at a Toronto nightclub and later in Mick Jagger’s limousine. The rendezvous sparked rumours that she was having an affair with the band’s front man. She later disappeared to New York. The scandal signalled the end of the couple’s tumultuous marriage, but Margaret Trudeau denied having affairs with any members of the Rolling Stones, later telling a conference on mental health, “I should have slept with every single one of them.”

Margaret Trudeau banged more drums than Charlie Watts.

[BartSimpson]

raydan wrote:

I don't care about a Senator going after some young nookie, nothing illegal was done although some would question the morality. What REALLY bothers me was that this was a married pastor.

I see your point. If he'll violate that oath he'll violate any other oath.

[BeaverFever]

peck420 wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

You're pathetic if you can't tell the
Lying about your credentials and/or work history will net you an immediate termination.

The only time that would bring an "immediate termination" would be if you falsely claimed to possess the qualifications required for the job and therefore applied under false pretences. Like forging a university degree for example. A qualified employee would not get fired because they overdid the bullshitting at the company picnic one day.

Quote:

Using company resources to clean up a self made moral mess will also net you an immediate termination.

What does this refer to?

Quote:

It is time to take your partisan googles off.

A vous.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever wrote:

Unbelievable. He used his position to influence a barely legal minor and her family for sexual gain. He had sex and cyber-sex with her while traveling on senate business and using senate computer/phone. He is the subject of numerous sexual harassment and inappropriate touching complaints from senate staffers.

LITERALLY ANY EMPLOYER will fire you for ANY those things without it rising to the level of criminal charges

Telling a FIB is completely different.

As I said, the fact that you can't judge the moral difference between this kind of sexual impropriety and someone telling tall tales just illustrates the threat conservative attitudes pose towards women. No wonder these problems keep occurring in your camp.

Lying about your military service is now referred to as a "fib"?