07.22.2010 05:38 AM

Guergis-gate: not

Write your own caption!

I’m doing Canada AM, in a little bit, on the Helena Guergis mess – a mess entirely of the Harperite Team’s own making. She and her lawyer are going to do rather well, I’d say.

What’s your view?  Got any good lines for me to use on AM?  Caption for the photo above? Comments are open!

67 Comments

  1. William M says:

    “Long form short form whatever. What you did to me just shows you have POOR form!”

  2. briguyhfx says:

    “I’m not a big fan of the PMO jumping to conclusions about his staff based on the word of some sleazy private investigator.”

    While the RCMP doesn’t think that anything criminal took place, the continued use of her office by Rahim Jaffer, lobbying for his own private enterprise, was unethical. Be guarded in your remarks, Warren.

    • Warren says:

      What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

      • briguyhfx says:

        Nothing. It’s public knowledge that Jaffer was using Guergis’ offices while lobbying for his interests. Prentice described this activity to a parliamentary committee on the issue, naming the official that Jaffir was lobbying. This testimony was reported by the National Post and the Globe and Mail, among other papers.

        • Ted says:

          Exactly. All before Harper made his decision to throw her under the bus and impugn her reputation with allegations of criminal and ethical misconduct, which he said was based on information he received THAT day, not before.

      • Reality.Bites says:

        I don’t know what briguyhfx knows, but I don’t see any other party rushing to invite her to join them.

        Not even the Greens.

        Not even to get into the next round of debates.

        Harper handled it badly, as he does all issues involving people who weren’t grown in a pod, but getting rid of Jaffer and Guergis is the kind of even that would make any party leader happy.

    • Ted says:

      When Harper fired her, kicked her out of caucus, banned her from running, launched an RCMP investigation into her conduct and launched an ethics probe intor her conduct, it was a Thursday evening and he said he was acting on “new information” that had just come to his office that day.

      The Jaffer stuff would certainly not be enough to launch a criminal investigation into Guergis. More importantly, all his dealings were known to Harper before then.

      Be guarded in your remarks, briguyhfx.

      • briguyhfx says:

        Look, all I was trying to say is that Warren shouldn’t defend Guergis directly, but rather attack Harper’s methodology. I think we actually agree on that. Judging from the PEI incident alone, Guergis isn’t really cabinet material. But then, neither are most of our current cabinet ministers.

  3. Sandra says:

    Harper took the word of a sleazy gumshoe – a weakness in judgment.

    Harper stood up at a press conference to announce the investigation trying to look tough – weakness in statesmanship and dignity.

    Personally, if I were Guergis, I’d give up politics and concentrate on the new baby. She’s not getting any younger and has difficulty with pregnancies – perhaps it’s an omen. Perhaps when the baby is born her focus will change.

    I don’t condone her attitude, but life has a way of giving lessons.

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      The interesting part here, is that Ignatieff and the Liberals did not even have the benefit of a conservation or the words of a “sleazy gumshoe to quote you” to start to call for her head.

      The reason that it is interesting, is that Ignatieff and the Liberals had no basis of fact, nothing to support their calls and comments and yet they still proceeded with their public show trial, now that does in fact show a degree of weakness in statesmanship and dignity and is very indicative of this new Liberal party and their lack of direction.

      • Namesake says:

        Hey, Quackery, your “Everything I need to know about arguing I learned in kindergarten” techniques get really old really fast.

        These days, the trouble with the default “turning the tables,” “tu quoque,” or “You Too” arguments (“My daddy’s not stupid; your daddy’s stupid”) isn’t just that they’re fallacious (um, they might _both_ be stupid): it’s You Tube!

        I.e., you can’t try rewriting history when there’s readily accessible archived video evidence & news coverage of her little diva hissy fit about being stuck in this Helll-hole at the PEI airport & demanding to be exempt from the security req’s that everyone else is subject to & which the Cons implemented, & which she semi-apologized for

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4tdhUlh74&feature=related

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TBPt1g38Ek&feature=related

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h815bGQY164&feature=related

        — that’s why the Libs’ called for her resignation, and they did have evidence of irrational behavior & conduct unbecoming of a Cabinet Minister, however much you’d like to deny it now.

        As for your later screeds of, “I can’t hear you… Nobody likes you! 23%! 23%!…”

        Not only is this totally beside the point (namely, did Harper show bad judgment leadership or not?), but it shows a really primitive understanding of the true state of public opinion.

        First, as most everyone who looked at its regional breakdowns carefully noted at the time, that 10-pt. spread in that particular Ekos poll was an unreliable anomaly, and it’s already old news; the latest Ekos poll released today has it as an 7 pt gap once again: http://canadanewsdesk.com ; http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/21/ekos-poll.html

        Second, there are reasons to be dubious of _all_ those Ekos polls as accurate indicators of intent: an Environics poll released just days after that one found only a 3-pt. spread, w. the Libs at 32% fed. vote intention. As the CBC (who commissions the Ekos polls) explains, one of the reasons for the discrepancies is that their poll might drag down the results since it affixes the name of the (unpopular) leaders onto the “which party will you vote for” Q, which taints the result, since the leaders’ names don’t appear on the ballot (except in their partic. riding), and another is how the data is collected [live telephone; robotic, push a button for response telephone; or Internet]:

        “But the surveys suggest that depending on the specific questions and the methodology, differences arise in the level of Conservative support. The Environics poll suggests the Tories have a narrow three-point lead over the Liberals when respondents were asked which party’s candidate they would vote for if a federal election were held today. The results of that poll were based on live telephone interviews and the question focused on choosing a party’s candidate. But a recent EKOS poll, which suggested the Conservatives have a 10-point lead over the Liberals, used interactive voice recognition technology (IVR), meaning respondents punched their preferences into a keypad, rather than speak to an operator. The poll question also differed in that it asked party preference: If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would you vote for?

        A Leger poll suggested the Tories had an 11-point lead over the Liberals. That poll was conducted over the internet and included the names of the party leaders in the voter intention questions alongside their party names.

        http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/news/story/2010/07/13/environics-poll.html

        In other words, Conservatives have a very uneasy relationship with data, as usual.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          In closing, this attempt at censorship would explain why so many old school Liberals have such a hard time understanding this new and I must say unimproved party and that this lack of understanding has in fact lead to so many Liberals leaving the party.

          So debate the points, disagree with the points, disagree with me – but try and keep it away from being personal, it makes it so much more fun.

          I do make it a point not to stop and listen to barking dogs who hide behind fences (read not using their name) and while I rather enjoy listening to the wolfs howling at the moon.

          I do find it rather child like to hear an individual who does their howling on a web page.

          As for you, well judging from what you write and how you write, you are clearly one of the self appointed new Liberals who believe that howling at the truth will some how return the Liberals to power.

          So debate the points, disagree with the points, disagree with me – but try and keep it away from being personal, it makes it so much more fun.

          As a rule do not waste my time with the chattering dog class, but here is some data for you to consider as the drop in support can be attributed to the very tactics that you use.

          I do know that this is over your pay scale, but since it is only one time, why not.

          2000 Liberal support 40.3%, 2004 liberal support 36.7%, 2006 Liberal support 30.2%, 2008 liberal support 26.3%, 2010 Liberal support at 23% to 25&.

          Now factor this in, the Liberals were at 30.% less than 3 months ago as was the Conservatives and over the same period the Conservatives are tracking at 33% to 36% depending on the polling company and the Liberals are at 23% to 25%.

          As to your comments, all it is application of the four rules for Liberals ,

          Rule number one, Lie

          “In other words, Conservatives have a very uneasy relationship with data, as usual.”

          Rule number two, Deny

          “I.e., you can?t try rewriting history when there?s readily accessible archived video evidence & news coverage of her little diva hissy fit about being stuck in this Helll-hole at the PEI airport & demanding to be exempt from the security req?s that everyone else is subject to & which the Cons implemented, & which she semi-apologized for”

          Rule number three, Smear.

          “Hey, Quackery, your ?Everything I need to know about arguing I learned in kindergarten? techniques get really old really fast.

          Rule number four, Fear –

          Which by the very nature of your post shows just how fearful you really are.

          • Namesake says:

            Aw, you don’t think it’s fair or fun to make fun of your name when you troll?

            How ’bout I just call you ZSS then…

            but ZSS-ZSS, which is fair, given your multiple redundant posts, and is more fitting, for a:

            “Large biting fl[y] that …live[s] by feeding on the blood of vertebrate[s] and [is] the primary biological vectors of trypanosomes, [and whose long, dull droning posts] cause human sleeping sickness.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsetse_fly

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          There is however the possibilty that the arguments ?My daddy?s not stupid; your daddy?s stupid? is truthful in your case and most likely probable as you would have appear to have some of his genes handed down and what did someone call you Justin.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          Not a problem with the name calling as it just proves my point that you are unable to debate and that as with most individuals who post under false names you are nothing more than a coward who is afraid to put his real name out there and you should update yourself on the current rulings that hiding behind a false ID does not protect you anymore.

          If you wish to insult me, I am afraid that you do not have the skills required to do so as you are one of the most mudane individuals I have read on these blogs,

          So go back to barking at the fence and howling at the moon and do whatever you Jedi Knights do in their mothers basements and leave the conversation to those whose hands are not so busy that they cannot type with two hands.

  4. Connoisseur says:

    Helena caused her own mess and the Liberals had better not take her in. She’s always been explosive and bull-headed, sitting as an independent will do her some good. The RCMP may not have found anything, but weren’t they the same people who tasered an innocent man at the Vancouver airport??

    No apology necessary.

  5. Paul R. Martin says:

    I disagree Warren. The Liberals were very quick to call for her firing. Are the Liberals going to apologize to her? Not likely. Are the Liberals going to lay off her husband? I doubt it. The Jaffer’s are too toxic for the Conservatives.

    • Ted says:

      What has come to light to show that she was not incompetent and actually should be a cabinet minister?

      You are merging two issues: was she incompetent and deserved to be fired from cabinet and was her conduct criminal justifying an investigation, kicking her out of caucus permanently and banning her from running as a CPC MP?

      Two extremely different issues.

      • james curran says:

        1. Yes, she was incompetent. That is why she was relegated to a junior minister position. 2. We Liberals tortured her plenty to be kicked out of cabinet. In fact, we wated days in question period asking for her resignation. Time that could have been spent on, oh, I don’t know….Eudcation, Women’s issues, Health Care, Poverty in Canada….3. for the life of me I cannot understand WHY ON EARTH LIBERALS ARE ASKING THE PRIME MINISTER TO APOLOGIZE TO HER! I’m at a loss. ….double sigh.

  6. Ted H. says:

    Warren, I am pleased to see you speaking publicly on behalf of the Liberal Party with regard to the Helena Guergis story, and raising important points.

    Despite your differences with the Party on some issues, I can’t imagine that you would be speaking on national television, debating the issue with your respected adversary, Tim Powers, an obvious official mouthpiece for the CPC, as a freelancer, without sanction from the LPC.

    • Warren says:

      I don’t work for them anymore, so I doubt they approved of me one way or another. CTV – with which I have a long relationship – asked me on, and I said sure. Tim’s my buddy, too.

      I am a Liberal, but have some disagreements with the current regime on a variety of issues. But that’s how it is for everybody, I suspect.

      • Stacey says:

        What are the disagreements? Will you address the rumours? I’m a loyal fan of yours and I’m worried that people are spreading some pretty awful lies about you.

  7. Ted says:

    She’s clearly got a pretty solid defamation case. Winnable? Not clear, but enough to get to discoveries. Discoveries will strike the fear of Harper, er, God in the CPC. They will do whatever they can to make sure she can’t interrogate all PMO staffers and see all their emails and memos on her.

    The result will be a settlement for money (and a nice tight draconian confidentiality agreement) OR a reversal and a welcome mat back into caucus and a lifting of the ban on running (for now, they’ll still find some way to keep her out).

  8. Eddie says:

    To quote Poison: “Every rose has its thorn…” This is another example of how the Prime Minister and his office treat not only the party staff, but now its members too.

  9. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Ted,

    You are spot on. Something made this Prime Minister behave uncharacteristically — he is not one to normally be spooked like this. He went for radical amputation when in hindsight this situation was clearly manageable.

    Harper won’t make the same mistake twice. As soon as the white smoke comes out of the Ethics Commissioner’s office, he will recalibrate, reassess and put on a convenient fig leaf. Translation: the PM will swallow his pride, and let her back in caucus. He needs to cut his losses and that can only be done by restoring her as the Conservative candidate in Simcoe-Grey…

    Can you spell S-E-T-T-L-E-M-E-N-T as quick as lightning!?

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Ronald,

      I am surprised that you are taking the tack that the CBC and othe liberal media supporters are taking with their talking points, although I am sure that the Liberals are interested in trying to create another scandal from this it is hard to understand just what would their talking points be as they have been on both sides of the issues now.

      All this would do in reality is to keep the news cycle off Ignatieff, by the way how is the farewell touring going, I understand that he is meeting lots of Liberals who are causing him no end of trouble and one can only speculate as to how bad things will get when he starts to meet Canadians.

      In any case, back to the topic at hand.

      If one looks at t how the PM and the PMO handled the process, there would be little chance that Helna could make the case for compensation, but if she did just think of all those Liberals with their view that they are entitled to their entitlements lining up to for compensation at the hands of the taxpayer.

      First point being that all PM from all parties can and have remove individuals from cabinet, so no ground there.

      The second point being that the PM was carefull not to say anything, the Liberals and their coalition partners on the other hand are on record outside the house saying a number of things that might be lead to compensation if it were to go to court.

      Third point, if she wishes to come back to the party, I would suggest that lauching a suit aganist the Conservatives is not the way to go as some might consider that as a limiting move, so to speak.

      Fourth point, it puts her in a catch 22 and she is damned if she does and damned if she joins the Liberals.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:

        Zachary,

        The potential suit is known as leverage, something Conservatives are rather adept at practicing and know a lot about. Again, a wise PM knows when, and more importantly, HOW to cut his loses.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          Ronald,

          The only leverage is that the Liberals will try and use this as a talking point, you know the one where they claim this person or that person is under investigation, by the way with all those investigations and court cases lauched by the Liberals and their supportes over the past 5 years, I believe that there has been case where there has been a finding where the Conservatives were at fault and that was H.G. and I understand the fine was $100.00

          The flip flop on this is the Liberals lambasted the Conservatives for using the courts and now they are supporting that – oh well what else would one expect from the party of do as I say, not as i do.

          Speaking about cutting the loses, whats is happeing about the 23% man, there has not been any coverage and that is just weird or is it.

          • Sandra says:

            So, you are using Warren’s site to take continual partisan shots.

            By the way – Ignatieff and the other opposition parties asked for her risgnation from Cananet – not from the Con caucus and party. Get your partisan story straight.

          • Ted H. says:

            Hey Zach, do you get a lunch break, working in the cellar below the PMO?

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          Hey Ronald,

          I see that the Liberals concept of free speak is getting its usually work out here as well, as there are a number of self appoint guardians of the Liberal truth trying to shout down another point of view by attacking the individual and not the message.

          Now I do understand why they do it, as they cannot debate the issues nor do they have a balanced view that can see both sides of the issues and that rather than educate themselves on the issues – they trash the individual.

          “So, you are using Warren?s site to take continual partisan shots.” Sandra

          Sandra, I am sure that Mr. Kensella is very able to put any flies in the soup in their place if he so choose too and that he does not require any assistance from the backbenches to do so.

          In any case, what is the point of a debate, where everyone agrees with each other.

          All that I am doing, is just offering up another POV that hopefully will give those individuals who’s false sense of being right is reinforced by hearing only one side of a many sided story.

          ” Hey Zach, do you get a lunch break, working in the cellar below the PMO?” Ted H.

          Just why is it always the same answer, that because someone has a view other than theirs that that individual must work in the PMO office.

          The same old same old reply clearly shows how far the Liberal staffers have fallen, (just returning the same line here) as all they can do is use canned talking points.

          If I wished to hear canned answers I would go to the drive through at any food outlet and talk to the post as that is as interesting as reading the same old same old over and over again.

          In closing, this attempt at censorship would explain why so many old school Liberals have such a hard time understanding this new and I must say unimproved party and that this lack of understanding has in fact lead to so many Liberals leaving the party.

          So debate the points, disagree with the points, disagree with me – but try and keep it away from being personal, it makes it so much more fun.

  10. CQ says:

    Parliament sure aint no Club Paradise.

  11. Zachary Scott Smith says:

    The Liberals should be more carefull as Canadians are tuning them out in even greater numbers as they fumble and stumble from one created scandal to another, the fact is that all those Liberal comments calling for her head are out there and this sudden conversion is just so Liberal and as one considers that the liberal leader was the chief cheerleader it does call in further question his ability to lead this country.

    • Ted says:

      And that, folks, is what we call DefCon3 (i.e. Defend Conservatives condition 3) – Blame the Liberals

      DefCon1 – If an issue arises, say it’s a non story
      DefCon2 – If the issue won’t go away, then blame the media
      DefCon3 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame the Liberals
      DefCon4 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a bureaucrat or provincial premier
      DefCon5 – If the issue still won’t go away, then blame a staffer
      DefCon6 – If the issue still won’t go away, then start talking about Adscam, coalitions, broken GST promises and the NEP

      • Warren says:

        God, I love that. You’re a genius.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          I thought you had higher standards than that, but then again I am comparing you to the current Liberals ruining the party and their standards are just so low now, judging from the elections results and the last three leaders Martin, Dion, Ignatieff.

        • Wascally Wabbit says:

          Sounds like a little plagiarizing of Sir Humphrey to me….

          • Zachary Scott Smith says:

            Just what did I plagiarizing did I do or is this just one more excellent example of the old tried and true Liberal practice of lie, deny, smear or fear at work – in this case lie and or smear.

      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        DefCon1 ? If an issue arises, say it?s a non story – it is only a story to a Liberal or 23% of Canadians,
        DefCon2 ? If the issue won?t go away, then blame the media – it is still is only a story to the CBC or 6% of Canadians, which includes those who watch HNIC and Rick Mercer.
        DefCon3 ? If the issue still won?t go away, then blame the Liberals – Why not they are the cause for everthing wrong with this country, just ask 77% of Canadians,
        DefCon4 ? If the issue still won?t go away, then blame a bureaucrat or provincial premier – You are confused, that is what the Liberals did under Martin as they cut transfer payments.
        DefCon5 ? If the issue still won?t go away, then blame a staffer – It is only an issue to a Liberal, as 77% of Canadians do not share your position
        DefCon6 ? If the issue still won?t go away, then start talking about Adscam, coalitions, broken GST promises and the NEPLie, – See defcon3 for the reply

        • James Smith says:

          Gee wiz, how come you didn’t get your digs in about THE PIPELINE DEBATE while you were at it?

        • PolyGon says:

          Obsess much? The Liberals Party isn’t actually the devil incarnate (that’s the NDP, remember?)

          Now where were we? Ah yes, trying to hold the *current* government to account.

          • Zachary Scott Smith says:

            I wrote,

            “The Liberals should be more carefull as Canadians are tuning them out in even greater numbers as they fumble and stumble from one created scandal to another, the fact is that all those Liberal comments calling for her head are out there and this sudden conversion is just so Liberal and as one considers that the liberal leader was the chief cheerleader it does call in further question his ability to lead this country.”

            How is trying to create a scandal holding a Government to account.

      • Sandra says:

        Don’t forget – you don’t support the troops

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          Don?t forget ? you don?t support the troops”

          It was not until the Liberals started to see how high the support was with Canadians and that it was running at over 75% and has since gone to over 90%

          It was at that point the Liberal party found that they found their support for our service men and women and they reversed their previous anti military attacks and that from that point on “they too supported our troops”.

          However, they are now “not supporting the men and women” who serve our country in the air, as seen with their anti military attack designed as a review of the tender process.

          it is so obvious, that a party that started the sole tender process, invested $160.0 million dollars and had the file for a decade and did not start to complain about the process until a week before the contract was to be signed.

          is this just one more example, of the party who are cause that the Sky Kings are still flying two decades later and the party that sent our troops to a desert war zone in olive green uniforms and no equipment.

          Just so you know there are many Canadians from all parties that do not see that as “supporting our troops” and it is clear that you are not one of them.

  12. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Zachary,

    When the patient is bleeding, it’s generally wise to do something to stop it. Perhaps you can relay that to the bleeder-in-chief!!!

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Ronald,

      The Liberals did that with Martin at 30.2% 2006, Dion 26.3% 2008 and with Ignatieff at 23% in 2010, the pattern is set and the “doctor” aka the old white hair boys in Toronto and Montreal will soon be taking your advice to do something about the bleeding, after all why send out the Leader at this time for his farewell tour. to meet just Liberals.

      The one good thing is that they sent him on a bus across Canada and they are paying for it, with Chertien it was on a jet and the taxpayer paid for it

  13. Is that one of THE SPIKES in her hand.

  14. William M says:

    Good work this am Warren

    Tim should wake up earlier to prepare….and straighten his hair.

  15. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    William M,

    As W has no doubt noticed, if Tim’s body language could kill…well, you know where I’m going with that one.

  16. JH says:

    More than interesting is the media role in all of this. All politiicans basically have a different moral code than the norm – hence their negative reputations, but in this case many of the media have not performed very admirably either. I’m remind of those 400 or so journalism professors and journalitsts who got together in the US in some sort of cabal to plot agains the Republican in order to help Obama during the US election campaign. These kind of actions don’t say much about the ethics of the jorunalistic profession on either side of the border

  17. Zachary Scott Smith says:

    It is a little late,

    He loves me he loves me not,

    Does this come in black,

    Hey, are not the Liberal colours red,

    If this was the bachorette and i gave him the red rose.

  18. Doug CS says:

    “This rose will look great on the casket of my husband’s career – too bad there isn’t another one for mine”

  19. JStanton says:

    The real story is not that Mr. Harper is mean to treat her so shabbily, its that she should never have been in cabinet in the first place. With her credentials and experience, how is she remotely qualified for a cabinet-level or any senior government position?

    The story that needs to be emphasized is Mr. Harper’s consistently poor judgment in appointing people to critical positions, with their only qualification being that they commit to doing only exactly what he tells them, and to keep quiet about anything else. How is this in the country’s best interests?

    In Ms. Guergis’ case, you can be sure that he factored in the positive optics for a right-wing government, of her gender and her husband’s ethnicity, otherwise any of his other neutered and equally unqualified back-benchers would have fit the bill just as well as she.

    Fact is, if she had had the experience or qualifications for the role, it would have required that she had earned the wisdom and good judgment to avoid the issues that may have destroyed her career and reputation. Much the same can be said of Mr. Harper.

    Lets have a good look at Mr. Harper’s other appointments. I’ll bet there are dozens that have as their only qualification their commitment to immediately doing Mr. Harper’s bidding, regardless of the mandate their position holds.

  20. Zachary Scott Smith says:

    Another Liberal talking point hits the pavement hard, one now has to wonder just what will be the coalition talking points will be now in the committee as two of their questions lines have dried up, and their allegations have been proven not truthful.

    What will they do for their show trial now, perhaps they will call the very rounding G.H. to testify, and I can imagine how that will play out?

    The dropping of the charges is but one more example that goes to the heart of the Liberals attacks on the Conservative party as being nothing less than smear tactics.

    A measure where they hope to gain a increase in their popular vote and that there is no basis for their allegations and that the allegations will only be made in the house where they have privilege.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nazim-gillani-fraud-case-collapses/article1648485/

    Nazim Gillani fraud case collapses, Ontario prosecutors drop charge against financier at centre of Guergis-Jaffer affair, Greg McArthur Globe and Mail Update Published on Thursday, Jul. 22, 2010 11:55AM EDT, Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 22, 2010 12:22PM EDT
    4a5z

    • Namesake says:

      Clearly you worship at the Ministry of Misinformation: the dropped Gillani charges are completely unrelated to Jaffergate

      “Gillani had faced one count of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence in a matter unrelated to his business dealings with Jaffer…”

      http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/22/gillani-guergis-jaffer.html

      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        It was one of the talking points for the Liberal party as they inferred was the possible connection of GH RJ and gillani and that it was a possible criminal connection.

        This was just a application of the liberal smear rule and the deny rule, but I must say that it is not often that I see a Liberal able to use two rules in their post.

        As to linking the CBC as a reference, well lets say that I along with 94% of Canadians, including those who watch HNIC and Rick Mercer do not consider this a reliable source for news, unless reliable is spelt re”lie”able.

        From your posts I do see that you are very familiar with the concept of the big lie, just an FYI the application of this tactic only works on those of middle to lower education and those who believe that they are smarter than the average Canadian, what you use of the big lie does explain, is the drop of almost 17% in support for the Liberals over the past ten years.

  21. James Smith says:

    Mr K,

    At first I could not get the C-AM thing to work, but I was able to find it here:

    http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=0zJUoWDgBMo

    When did you take to discurso a señor Powers en español?

  22. whatever says:

    Harper is a [deleted]

    As a Canadian I am embarrassed that he represents us on the world stage.
    I wasn’t a huge follower of politics to begin with but I kept tabs on the important issues.
    Since Harper became PM I have been thoroughly disgusted and turned away almost completely. He has tarnished politics and politicians in Canada to new level. I find him to be repugnant.

    I long for the Libs – my natural Party – to grow a pair and bury this mf’er.

    Please, it’s not a joke. His ilk must be removed. Help.

  23. Namesake says:

    Amen to that. But here’s the caption we were groping for:

    One of these does not belong…

  24. Corey says:

    Does she not seve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister? She has *no* case, nor do her lawyers. He (or any PM of any party) could fire his Cabinet every day. It’s the system we have. Or do you think Gaglianno has a “great case” too?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*