12.22.2011 02:23 PM

Chretien wins again

When will his adversaries ever learn?

Probably never.

49 Comments

  1. crf says:

    Harper should resign. The man cannot do his job, representing Canada is a statesman-like manner. He’s a blogging-tory at heart play-acting as Prime Minister (and badly). He has an ill-considered hasty opinion on everything. The pig-headedness of never changing his mind. An allergic reaction to evidence and logic. No respect for the opinions of people who are actually experts. But the power to do great damage.

  2. crf says:

    Harper should resign. The man cannot do the job of representing Canada is a statesman-like manner. He’s a blogging-tory at heart play-acting as Prime Minister (and badly). He has an ill-considered hasty opinion on everything. The pig-headedness of never changing his mind. An allergic reaction to evidence and logic. No respect for the opinions of people who are experts in law, science, diplomacy and the arts. But the power to do great damage.

  3. Sean says:

    fucking right

  4. smelter rat says:

    I love the sound of Reformacon heads bursting!

  5. Cam Prymak says:

    I am sure that they embrace any opportunity to deflect from other legal issues, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/22/pol-guergis-lawsuit.html

  6. Dan says:

    He should give it back anyway. It’s not like Chretien needs the money. Giving the money back would just be another way to announce that he’s been vindicated: he was awarded costs because his appeal was successful. The world should know it.

    Not that you should take advice from dippers. But that’s what I’d expect to see if he were truly not guilty.

  7. The Zaphos Institute says:

    Please explain exactly how the Liberal Party stole any money from the taxpayer during the sponsorship mess. Frankly I see very little difference between that scandal and Clement’s secretive G-8 spending in his riding (no doubt helping his buddies too), yet somehow that’s not theft? And before you tell me that no Reformatory MPs took any money personally, well neither did any Liberal MPs from Adscam. So again, please enlighten me here.

    • Loraine King says:

      Millions of dollars in paper bags – how big were the bags? Did they truck it? That’s almost as hysterical as the National Puss editorial stating, twice, that Martin would have known because as finance minister he signed all the cheques coming out of Ottawa. The bigger the lie, the more the Cons will believe it.

    • smelter rat says:

      Gord, Gord. Gord…and you were doing so well for awhile. This nonsense from you now is disappointing.

    • The Zaphos Institute says:

      Nice try, but you’re spewing the typical Reformatory bullshit. I have news for you, NO Liberal MPs or their party were ever charged or found guilty of any theft relating to Adscam. They stole nothing Mr Turk. Now they were deceitful and incompetent with the spending, but then again the Harper Government is doing well in that regard too. And Clement,likewise, has personally directed government funds without proper oversight (that were supposed to be for G-8 security) to bestow upon his riding to his favoured political buddies. I bet ya they were all financial contributors to the CPC too. That’s the same “theft” that you charge the Liberals with. And likewise, your party will soon suffer the same fate. Mark my words.

  8. Dan McCarthy says:

    As reprehensible as the Harper PMO comments are, we should not lose sight of another underlying agenda here – to question decisions of the courts at all levels, and just as they have done with Parliament and other national institutions, little by little destroy Canadians’ faith in these institutions. As Cam points out above, anything to distract attention from bombs such as Guergis court challenge. Just when it seems that this government could sink any lower …..

    • Philip says:

      I have a feeling that we have yet to see the true depths of this Conservative government.

      • The Zaphos Institute says:

        They’ll sink a lot lower now that they have more unanswered power than the Liberals ever enjoyed. Just watch.

        • The Doctor says:

          “they have more unanswered power than the Liberals ever enjoyed.”

          How is that? Harper has a majority, Chretien had 3 of them. And so on. What’s the difference. How does Harper have more power than, e.g., Chretien did?

          • SandraTheLoonieLefty says:

            Fake lakes anyone..

          • The Doctor says:

            You get the prize for non-sequitur of the day. Hope you like the steak knives.

          • The Zaphos Institute says:

            An ignorant “The Doctor” asked:
            How is that? Harper has a majority, Chretien had 3 of them. And so on. What’s the difference. How does Harper have more power than, e.g., Chretien did?

            In addition to majorities in the house and senate, Harper will soon have a majority of his appointees in the Supreme Court of Canada. Aside from his rhetoric of smaller government, Harper has increased the size of the public service; again with his appointees, and in larger numbers than the Liberals managed in half the time. Harper also enjoys almost complete support in the media, aside from Torstar and the neutral CBC. There’s also the fundraising superiority of the Conservatives, and the end of the per-vote subsidy.

            Even the Chretien Liberals never enjoyed all the advantages the Harper CPC now possesses. And I considered the Liberals a near-dictatorship in those times.

          • The Doctor says:

            When Chretien was in power, the majority of SCC judges were Liberal appointees. When Chretien was in power, the Liberals had a majority in the Senate. And for most of Chretien’s reign, the per-vote subsidy did not exist and thus had no effect on campaigns — because Chretien introduced the subsidy later on in his tenure. Nice try.

  9. Michael S says:

    “Mr. Gomery’s chief sin, according to Judge Teitelbaum, was a preoccupation with the media spotlight that led him to give interviews he should have eschewed, make comments that indicated he judged issues before all evidence was heard, exhibited bias against Mr. Chrétien, and trivialized the inquiry proceedings.”

    Where did we hear that before, hmm?

  10. Steven says:

    Maybe Gomery should be asked to pay costs.

    What was Paul Martin thinking in the first place?

    • smelter rat says:

      Exactly.

    • crf says:

      Maybe Martin’s call was a political gamble. Probably he had great faith that the inquiry would be well conducted.
      Gomery just didn’t do the best he could with the task he was given.

      Politicians and public have an eroding confidence in the justice system. Harper’s done NADA to remedy this growing problem. In fact he relishes it: you can only trust the dear leader then.

      Harper’s been in power 6 years and we’re seeing the first big domino, the RCMP, in the process of crumbling, from malign institutional neglect. Expect more.

  11. Tim says:

    “Small town cheap.”

    The political graveyard is full of the bones of those who underestimated M. Chretien. Justice Gomery at least finds himself in like minded company although I really don’t care if that makes him feel any better. Actually I hope it makes him feel worse.

  12. MCBellecourt says:

    Gee, and let’s not forget the taxpayer money that was used fraudulently for rebates in the in-and-out scheme, in which my MP was an active participant. They plead guilty Gord.

    And how about the fact that our taxpayer money was used to bomb the shit out of Libya with practically no debate? How much of our tax dollars were STOLEN in order to do that?

    And how much money is going to be sucked out of the provinces for implementing that stupid-ass crime bill? Your beloved Constupidives won’t even tell us how much that crime bill is worth.

    How much taxpayer money will be STOLEN out of the provinces’ health care to fund that fiasco?

    You only sound intelligent, Gord, but you’re nothing but a shill, and you are the worst example of someone who justifies voting against your own interests, because let me tell you my boy, when your hero Steve privatizes our healthcare and you find yourself having to pay out of pocket for exorbitant insurance premiums, only then will you realize that private interests will have been given carte blanche to steal from you and not necessarily give you what you paid for.

    Your kind makes me want to puke. You can keep on yakking until the cows come home, but the facts are the facts, and you are completely and utterly butt-blind to the implications of every (and I mean EVERY) move your heros impose on us.

    SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!

    • The Doctor says:

      I’m sorry, but there is a substantive and qualitative difference between a government spending money on policies that are stupid, or that you disagree with, or in an improvident fashion, versus actually stealing money. If you can’t grasp that distinction, then you’re just plain obtuse.

      • MCBellecourt says:

        Money spent without proper debate between the representatives of the people, who WE PAY WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, is money stolen. Your post is naught but another attempt at obfuscation.

        • The Doctor says:

          So I’m shilling for a party I didn’t vote for and don’t support? You’re insane. Or really really obtuse. Why don’t you go ask a police officer, Crown Attorney or criminal defence lawyer whether they agree with your definition of “theft”. Maybe you’ll learn something. I’m assuming you didn’t go to law school. If you did, that’s just frightening.

  13. Michael S says:

    She’s gonna win and they know it.

  14. Philip says:

    A combative Mr. Tulk wrote:
    “A buttoned cuff on a gentleman’s shirt is a miserable, squalid thing, suggestive of the ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude. Cuff-links can be valuable or relatively cheap, but they are essential if a man is to be smartly dressed.”

    Steady on, old chap. Steady on.

  15. gec says:

    http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

    Harper a sociopath ….. geez if the shoe fits

    • Brad Young says:

      I have said the same thing many times, I sincerely believe he is mentally ill. There can be no other explanation for his behaivour.

  16. gec says:

    When Mulroney gives back his envelopes of cash then Chretien should donate the 200K to charity …. otherwise all you radical extremist Tories shut the f*** up.

  17. The Doctor says:

    Proof that JC has superhero powers.

  18. DJ says:

    Chretien should donate it to Kairos or Planned Parenthood to really get on the Tories’ nerves. 🙂

  19. Anne Peterson says:

    I believe he’s a psychopath, just like I believe most conservatives making comments on threads are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong or fair and unfair. What else could you call someone who will do any damage to anyone (lots of decent people) in order to gain power for themselves. That’s a psychopath, isn’t it.

  20. John says:

    Mr. Chretien has won nothing over the whole Gomery ordeal. In fact, it has cost him dearly in terms of his legacy. No court rulings or legal procedural victories will restore what he has lost.

  21. MF says:

    Does not excuse the adscam program. Big difference between preceptions of bias and the facts on the ground. I don’t think Liberals are doing themselves any favors by glorifying this decision.

    • Jason King says:

      preception
      n. 1. A precept.

      precept [ˈpriːsɛpt]
      n
      1. a rule or principle for action
      2. a guide or rule for morals; maxim
      3. a direction, esp for a technical operation
      4. (Law) Law
      a. a writ or warrant
      b. a written order to a sheriff to arrange an election, the empanelling of a jury, etc.
      c. (in England) an order to collect money under a rate
      [from Latin praeceptum maxim, injunction, from praecipere to admonish, from prae before + capere to take]

      • MF says:

        Jason,

        “The term anal-retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal,[1] is used conversationally to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the anal-retentive person. The term derives from Freudian psychoanalysis. People who are said to be anal-retentive usually suffer from obsessive–compulsive personality disorder”

  22. Tim says:

    Righting the finances of our great nation, keeping us out of Iraq and defeating the separatists twice and that’s just the top headline. Proving that an asshole is an asshole is hardly a legacy day for the great man. Good grief.

Leave a Reply

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


*