CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Forum rules


This is a Liberal Party forum meant for like-minded discussion, if you want to flame or debate in open, please use the main Canadian Politics forum.

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:36 pm
 


Always4Iggy, you seriously need to get a grip. This is democracy, which measn that majority rules. Sure, we may not all be happy with the results, but at least it shows what a majority of the people want. Get over it. Iggy lost.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:54 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
Is the foundation of your objection then that these dinners to offset a candidate's campaign expenses drain money that would or should otherwise go into party coffers?
Always4Iggy wrote:
Thanks Firecat, now we are talking about the topic, rather than the personalities involved.

My objection is as follows:

a. The rule that no individual can contribute more than 5000 is a good one. It protects poor from the money power of the rich.
Firecat wrote:
a) I agree
Thanks, I hereby withdraw my suspicion that you are essentially fond of dishonesty where political funds are involved.
Always4Iggy wrote:
b. Borrowing is a way to allow the rich to evade the rights of the poor. For instance, Rae had one person give him over 800,000 dollars. To match that, Iggy would, have to find thousands of contributors!.
Firecat wrote:
b) completely contradicts the rule you correctly refernced in (a)
I think you are confusing between contributors and lenders. Iggy had the highest contributors, in fact the highest ever in the history of the Liberal party! He also had lenders queueing up, with over 5 million dollars, but did not touch a cent. The money loaned to his campaign was only the seed amount from Ian Davies, who went to Harvard to bring him over!
Always4Iggy wrote:
c. Borrowing is essentially dishonest, since only the winner can repay
Firecat wrote:
c) ridiculous. If you cannot find suporters to loan you for your campaign it's because they don't believe you can win. Take the hint.
I am now sure that you are confusing contributors and lenders.

Please read my first post again, now that you are willing to accept that perhaps I am neither a sore loser, nor a conservative.


Last edited by Always4Iggy on Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:54 pm
 


Arctic_Menace wrote:
Always4Iggy, you seriously need to get a grip. This is democracy, which measn that majority rules. Sure, we may not all be happy with the results, but at least it shows what a majority of the people want. Get over it. Iggy lost.


I think I'll wait to see the Party flag appear by this gentleman's name to continue this tedious exchange, Arctic_Menace. I think he's a fake. ROTFL


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:04 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
People will only lend you as much as much as they think you can repay and they all ended up spending about the same amount. As to soiphoning of from party funds, you're really reaching. Liberals who support such events also support general party events. People who can pay $500 a plate have more money they will be giving to the Party. I also believe that anything the candidate raised that exceeds his campaign expenses goes to the Party anyway.
I think you need to read my first post carefully, Firecat. Senator Grafstein, the organiser of the event, made a specific appeal for $500 a plate, promising people that they would get $350 back from the tax man!

This was not an appeal to the rich at all. It was for people like Lily and you, who find honesty tedious anyway!

But then I notice that you have both liberal and NDP flags flying...

so you could well be one of the Bob Rae persons waiting for Dion to sponsor his events...


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:16 pm
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Firecat wrote:
People will only lend you as much as much as they think you can repay and they all ended up spending about the same amount. As to soiphoning of from party funds, you're really reaching. Liberals who support such events also support general party events. People who can pay $500 a plate have more money they will be giving to the Party. I also believe that anything the candidate raised that exceeds his campaign expenses goes to the Party anyway.
I think you need to read my first post carefully, Firecat. Senator Grafstein, the organiser of the event, made a specific appeal for $500 a plate, promising people that they would get $350 back from the tax man!

This was not an appeal to the rich at all. It was for people like Lily and you, who find honesty tedious anyway!

But then I notice that you have both liberal and NDP flags flying...

so you could well be one of the Bob Rae persons waiting for Dion to sponsor his events...


The tax receipt is the part that is deductible on your income tax, just like it's been for ages. Any political event that qualifies under the Tax Act can issue a certain percentage as the deductible contribution. This is hardly scandalous. Your stand still makes no sense and even I can't help you on this one - you'll have to try to explain your point cogently yourself. Perhaps someone else you understood your stand could add his or her voice in making clear the inequity being perpetrated here?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:22 pm
 


lily wrote:
Always4Iggy wrote:
It was for people like Lily and you, who find honesty tedious anyway!

If you plan to call me a liar, you'd damned well better be able to back it up with something.


I'm still not sure what he's raving about.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:30 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
The tax receipt is the part that is deductible on your income tax, just like it's been for ages. Any political event that qualifies under the Tax Act can issue a certain percentage as the deductible contribution. This is hardly scandalous. Your stand still makes no sense and even I can't help you on this one - you'll have to try to explain your point cogently yourself. Perhaps someone else you understood your stand could add his or her voice in making clear the inequity being perpetrated here?
I am sorry but you have to use your head better.

Tax credits apply to all political contributions as follows:

First 400 - 75% credit then 50% credit and then 33% and no credit over about 1200 dollars.

If an appeal is made to the rich, then tax credits are not even mentioned, If it is mentioned, then it means that the persons targetted cannot even afford to give 500 dollars.

For instance, I spent over 2500 dollars as Iggy's delegate, but none of it was eligible for tax credits, because my charitable contributions already exceed the allowed amounts.

People who need the tax credit are not likely to again contribute to the party for the election next year.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:41 pm
 


lily wrote:
Always4Iggy wrote:
It was for people like Lily and you, who find honesty tedious anyway!

If you plan to call me a liar, you'd damned well better be able to back it up with something.
Easy,

Refer your post # 573,
Quote:
I think I'll wait to see the Party flag appear by this gentleman's name to continue this tedious exchange,


You backed out of understanding the difference between contributions and borrowings, finding it tedious.

However, most people do NOT find it tedious, so there are two possibilities:

a. The thought process of most people are tedious for you.

b. You are avoiding it, since you find the idea of evading the system too attractive to militate against.

I was presented by you with the choice of thinking you are either stupid or dishonest.

I did the best I could. If you don't like it, your choose. :D


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:45 pm
 


I hate people like you who are completely set in their ways and will not open their ears to hear other opinions... :roll:

It is also a piss-off when people like you lump those who don't agree with your particular agenda into the same category and try to ride them on accusations that hold no weight whatsoever.



What I'm trying to say is.........




GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!!!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:49 pm
 


Sorry Lily, I just realise that you had re-appeared in an exchange that was essentially Firecat and me.

In your case, the answer is the same but for different reasons.

a. I present my detailed message.

b. You come back with an 'ad-hominem' rejection, namely, you ignore all my points, but put me down as a sore loser. You repeat this.

c. You further, say that loyalty to the leader is more important than thinking.

So you are, again either sheepishly stupid to follow a leader blindly, or prefer the party status quo, however ethically challenged it is.

Now, Lily, like firecat, you choose. :D


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1104
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:54 pm
 


I'm going out. Maybe in that time someone will come forth who can argue always4iggy's point. It is tedious to argue with him. If someone can present his ideas better I'll gladly discuss it with them. Later.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:03 pm
 


Firecat wrote:
I'm going out. Maybe in that time someone will come forth who can argue always4iggy's point. It is tedious to argue with him. If someone can present his ideas better I'll gladly discuss it with them. Later.
Firecat, is honesty tedious, or do YOU find it tedious? :D


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:45 pm
 


While Firecat is away, let me not assume that the matter is well understood by everyone else.

The first thing is that I am not here as a sore loser. I am an Iggy fan much before he even got elected from his constituency, and before he had even considered politics. It makes little difference to his international stature and reputation if he is not elected. In fact, the cognoscenti would prefer him in his present state, when he can speak his mind out, and say what he pleases.

Freedom, to borrow from the song, is another word for nothing left to win :)

But as an Iggy contributor, then a worker, then a delegate and as a believer in liberalism, I think we all need to think about some systems in the party.

Of all the systems, I think the method by which the leader is selected is the most important one.

I am proud that I could help Firecat and Lily to think about these issues, though so far I have not been able to make them speak for honesty, high ethics and better systems. Perhaps Firecat is a confused person, what with both Liberal and NDP flags on his mast!

But hopefully Lily and all the others here will speak up for more honest leadership selection, with less underhand negotiation and less faction building.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:11 am
 


For Always4iggy,

Could you clearly explain what rule was broken, and if none, explain why candidates shouldn't operate as they feel fit as long as they remain within the rules ? Is your issue with the rules themselves or the candidates ?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:57 am
 


Delwin wrote:
For Always4iggy,

Could you clearly explain what rule was broken, and if none, explain why candidates shouldn't operate as they feel fit as long as they remain within the rules ? Is your issue with the rules themselves or the candidates ?
Delwin, a good question, first of all, as you have guessed, I propose that the rules are incorrect, to be specific, there are two rules which are wrong:

a. Unlimited borrowing is wrong because it lets moneybags in.
Delwin, I do not deny that SOME borrowing levels the playing field. If you stand for example, as a less known member, you have to publicise yourself, send information about your platform, visit constituencies, in short, get exposure, and this costs money. Without exposure, people won't contribute to your campaign. So you NEED to borrow initially. But there should be limits to it. Consider the numbers:

Dion-Kennedy-Martha
Raised per delegate $492.08
Borrowed per delegate $513.65


Rae-Volpe-Brison-Dryden
Raised per delegate $1126.95
Borrowed per delegate $1064.94


Ignatieff
Raised per delegate $701.16
Borrowed per delegate $129.87

Except for Ignatieff, who borrowed initially from Ian Davies, who brought him back from Harvard, all the other candidates went overboard. To be honest, in the Dion faction, Kennedy's borrowings were less in proportion, but there WAS the use of his brother in law's call centre and I am not sure how it was accounted for.

My point, Delvin is that the 'raised' part is what people gave within the rules, the 'borrowed' part is just rich people pouring in money! If you or Lily or Firecat stands for leadership tomorrow, do you want some rich guy to support his brother or friend against you?

I think you will agree that borrowings should be limited, they should be only an initial amount.

My second point is:

Is Dion only Kennedy's leader?
I do agree that Dion has only himself to use to pay back his own borrowings, but should he help pay back for Kennedy? Don't think for a moment that I am saying that he should help pay back for Iggy, because as I said, Iggy borrowed only much less and we are paying it back for him, without Dion.

But ask yourself. Eight candidates fought, and all fair and square. Does the leader belong to some of them?

If your answer is YES then Lily is wrong to say that we are united. We are not, it is each faction for itself and devil take the hindmost.

If your answer is NO, the leader should be above partisan politics, then you have understood what I am saying.

I hope I am making sense, Delvin.


Last edited by Always4Iggy on Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.