[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Lets see if we can clear this up.
...
con response: That lying, backstabbing whore. red herring attack on Liberals.
...
con response: That lying dirty bitch. Red herring attack on Liberals.

Prove that. The only person who's been swearing up a storm is you.

You'd like that but I've been follwing this as close as you and I saw no one calling her bad names or saying she was anything more than confused or misdirected. If I'm right and the liberals wrote this book as an attack, the only person who was lying was the Liberals.

By the way.. PMPM promised to follow up on Chucks anti-street racing crusade.

Did anything get done?

No. Not by the Liberals.

Go back and read who infers who is lying.

Lets see how your idea for proof holds up.

Prove:

Any liberal involvement in so-called adscam.

Prove that Chretien had direct involvement. Same for Martin.

Prove it happened with evidwence. Evidence that will only be accepted is the exact dollar amounts, denominations and seriel numbers on all the bills.

You will also have to prove that either Chretien or Martin had knowledge of and ordered such money to change hands.

bear in mind that since they both said they are innocent then they must be because they wouldn't lie after all.

Also bear in mind that anybody saying otherwise is obviously a liar.

Now prove that Dion said "we should invade Pakistan". Prove that.

The cold hard facts are that despite all your crying about corruption in the government you aren't in the least bit concerned when its your party.

Your corrupt party tried to bribe a dying man and nothing you say can change that fact.

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

This kind of situation is a lot like a custody battle where everyone it pointing and waiving their finger at each other.

A lot of stuff can be said and twisted outside of a court room, especially when we are relying on liberal media for the facts.

When it's all said and done, the only parts that matter are the parts that are admisable in court.

Unless of course its rumours and innuendo against the Liberals.

If you were able even for a second to look beyond your rabid anti-Liberalism you would see that all the cons on her who previously convicted the Liberals based entriely on rumours or the words of a few individuals suddenly did an about face and demanded videotape evidence.

They even dismissed the evidence given by their own candidates when it didn't suit their pre-conceived notions.

pathetic.

[ridenrain]

.. and you demand we learn to read?
What the hell was that? Did you text that on you're phone while riding the bus?

[Benoit]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Benoit Benoit:

ridenrain ridenrain:

It's perfectly acceptable for a party to ask an underperforming candidate to make room for a better one, and that's exacly the case with Cadman. It's also perfectly legal if money or "special considerations" pass hands to get that candidate.

A man who could vote himself out of a job would appreciate knowing that he'd get another, and a campaign for an independant is a very expensive proposition, expecially when medical bills and health concerns are the first priority.

All legal and all moral.

No jury will buy that a democratically-elected and terminally-ill man turning his back to his party would have received such back-up from the people he lets down.

I'm not sure I get you're point.

Chucks appeal was his image of "the average man", a sort of a "MR Smith goes to Ottawa".
This is what allowed him to win so easy when he had to run as an independent. A party behind him would just give him more funding and much more strength.
I'm quite sure that the people of the riding would have elected him again.

No "average guy" has to overcome the murder, in the street, of his 16-year old son by a group of teenagers.

[Wally_Sconce]

If I pass you a napkin and tell you its worth a million dollars, is it a bribe?

If a fool interprets a worthless offer as a bribe, is it a bribe?

If the insurance policy was legit, what is the name of the carrier? Why would they issue a policy to a dying man?

[Wally_Sconce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

This kind of situation is a lot like a custody battle where everyone it pointing and waiving their finger at each other.

A lot of stuff can be said and twisted outside of a court room, especially when we are relying on liberal media for the facts.

When it's all said and done, the only parts that matter are the parts that are admisable in court.

Unless of course its rumours and innuendo against the Liberals.

If you were able even for a second to look beyond your rabid anti-Liberalism you would see that all the cons on her who previously convicted the Liberals based entriely on rumours or the words of a few individuals suddenly did an about face and demanded videotape evidence.

They even dismissed the evidence given by their own candidates when it didn't suit their pre-conceived notions.

pathetic.

liberal media doesn't print romours and innuendo about the has been Liberals

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

This kind of situation is a lot like a custody battle where everyone it pointing and waiving their finger at each other.

A lot of stuff can be said and twisted outside of a court room, especially when we are relying on liberal media for the facts.

When it's all said and done, the only parts that matter are the parts that are admisable in court.

Unless of course its rumours and innuendo against the Liberals.

If you were able even for a second to look beyond your rabid anti-Liberalism you would see that all the cons on her who previously convicted the Liberals based entriely on rumours or the words of a few individuals suddenly did an about face and demanded videotape evidence.

They even dismissed the evidence given by their own candidates when it didn't suit their pre-conceived notions.

pathetic.

liberal media doesn't print romours and innuendo about the has been Liberals

Sure.

In the end your hypocracy and that of all the cons is showing.

You demand a level of evidence far exceeding what you used to convict the Liberals and even when there is ample evidence of deliberate malfeasance you either dismiss it or call it a Liberal trick.

If this had been the Liberals who did this then you guys would already have had them tarred and feathered.

Practice what you preach there skippy.

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

If I pass you a napkin and tell you its worth a million dollars, is it a bribe?

If a fool interprets a worthless offer as a bribe, is it a bribe?

If the insurance policy was legit, what is the name of the carrier? Why would they issue a policy to a dying man?

They probably had no intention of ever making good on their offer.

What was Chuck going to do? Sue them for non-payment of bribe?

[Benoit]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

If I pass you a napkin and tell you its worth a million dollars, is it a bribe?

If a fool interprets a worthless offer as a bribe, is it a bribe?

If the insurance policy was legit, what is the name of the carrier? Why would they issue a policy to a dying man?

Bribing (traffic of influence) is more palatable with a bit of false representation.

[Wally_Sconce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

If I pass you a napkin and tell you its worth a million dollars, is it a bribe?

If a fool interprets a worthless offer as a bribe, is it a bribe?

If the insurance policy was legit, what is the name of the carrier? Why would they issue a policy to a dying man?

They probably had no intention of ever making good on their offer.

What was Chuck going to do? Sue them for non-payment of bribe?

I can produce a worthless piece of paper for you in under an hour. If you are dumb enough to think the precluding offer is a bribe, that is your fault, not mine.

This is all an misunderstanding. The statement was just a colorful way of explaining that they weren't going to pay him a bribe. And, its a very intelligent way to explain it because you can honestly state that "nothing of value was discussed for any reason."

[Benoit]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

If I pass you a napkin and tell you its worth a million dollars, is it a bribe?

If a fool interprets a worthless offer as a bribe, is it a bribe?

If the insurance policy was legit, what is the name of the carrier? Why would they issue a policy to a dying man?

They probably had no intention of ever making good on their offer.

What was Chuck going to do? Sue them for non-payment of bribe?

I can produce a worthless piece of paper for you in under an hour. If you are dumb enough to think the precluding offer is a bribe, that is your fault, not mine.

This is all an misunderstanding. The statement was just a colorful way of explaining that they weren't going to pay him a bribe. And, its a very intelligent way to explain it because you can honestly state that "nothing of value was discussed for any reason."

Forging a document is a criminal offense too.

[Wally_Sconce]

i dont have to forge a thing, to make an insurance policy for Cadman worthless. All you have to do is tell the truth about his health.

[Benoit]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

i dont have to forge a thing, to make an insurance policy for Cadman worthless. All you have to do is tell the truth about his health.

Practicing medicine without the proper qualifications is yet another crime.

[Wally_Sconce]

filling out an insurance application, and reporting known health conditions is not called practising medicine.

[Wally_Sconce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

This kind of situation is a lot like a custody battle where everyone it pointing and waiving their finger at each other.

A lot of stuff can be said and twisted outside of a court room, especially when we are relying on liberal media for the facts.

When it's all said and done, the only parts that matter are the parts that are admisable in court.

Unless of course its rumours and innuendo against the Liberals.

If you were able even for a second to look beyond your rabid anti-Liberalism you would see that all the cons on her who previously convicted the Liberals based entriely on rumours or the words of a few individuals suddenly did an about face and demanded videotape evidence.

They even dismissed the evidence given by their own candidates when it didn't suit their pre-conceived notions.

pathetic.

liberal media doesn't print romours and innuendo about the has been Liberals

Sure.

In the end your hypocracy and that of all the cons is showing.

You demand a level of evidence far exceeding what you used to convict the Liberals and even when there is ample evidence of deliberate malfeasance you either dismiss it or call it a Liberal trick.

If this had been the Liberals who did this then you guys would already have had them tarred and feathered.

Practice what you preach there skippy.

w.r.t the adscam...

In the end your hypocracy and that of all the Liberals is showing. That is why Canada booted their ass out of government

You demand a level of evidence far exceeding what you used to convict the Conservative Party of Canada, and even when there is ample evidence of deliberate malfeasance you either dismiss it or call it a conservative trick.

If this had been the Conservatives who did this then you guys would already have had them tarred and feathered.

Practice what you preach there Derby-ex