Blue Like You

This sort of story emanating from our supposibly unbiased tax funded institutions make me angry and scared at the same time. We had too many years of unchecked Liberal power and they seem to have succesfully infiltated many depts.

This along with HRC should be front page news. Instead we still hear about Julie Couillard. She’s top story again on Bourque. Tabloid is all that sells now.

Until Canadians wake up and start paying attention to their taken for granted democracy, we will get what we deserve.
Harper needs at least one full majority term to do some clean up but 2 terms would be better IMO.
God help us if the Liberals are reelected anytime soon.

…but a few more drug binge nights at Liberal HQ and your position will be in jeopardy.

I think Sam’s Koolaid must have fermented.

Seriously, complaints about Elections Canada ineptitude and bias should be directed to the Ethics Commissioner.

Office:
Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
66 Slater Street, 22nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Postal:
Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Parliament of Canada
Centre Block, P.O. Box 16
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Telephone: 613-995-0721
Fax: 613-995-7308
E-mail: ciec-ccie@parl.gc.ca

The emails are just the tip of the iceberg.

Killing the story isn’t defending yourself Gayle. It’s called a cover up.

That’s o.k. Dr. Roy. I’m not sure I would characterize Gayle as a ‘troll’.

Misguided, perhaps. Blindly partisan, perhaps.

But not a troll.

This is the start of the cover-up. he CPC was to go to court to grill EC the next day, tis stinks to high heaven

Gayle says

“So, if they try and defend themselves they are guilty”

So I assume from your comment that you are in favor of the non partisan FA department investigating the Bernier affair.

Or is it only non partisan when it fits your view?

“Gayle, I think your analogy would carry more weight if I were a taxpayer-funded ‘non-partisan’ institution.”

Why?

Are you suggesting they should have done absolutely nothing to defend themselves? That makes no sense.

Nice catch, Wilson. It’s all there in glorious colour. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say.

Gayle, what exactly did they do to defend themselves beyond sending frantic emails? Just askin’.

Yes, they should be there, May. Some of the comments didn’t make the transition though. Try searching on the little calendar icon at the top right and go back to April. Then click on April 15 and start there.

This is what bothers me; if EC’s credibility, accountability, impartiality and professionalism is in question now (which it most certainly is); it is also in question during the next election, whenever that may be. If I feel I can’t trust them now, how can I trust that the ballot I cast won’t end up getting ripped up hours later?

Joanne

The point I was addressing is this:

“And why did Elections Canada feel the need to have only positive press anyway? Usually only politicians need concern themselves with such matters. And if you have nothing to hide, why worry about killing stories and blacking out emails?”

You are suggesting there is something wrong with EC’s reaction to the allegations of bias.

The reason EC, a non-partisan institution that oversees our elections, is concerned about these spurious and completely unfounded allegations is found here:

“This is what bothers me; if EC’s credibility, accountability, impartiality and professionalism is in question now (which it most certainly is); it is also in question during the next election, whenever that may be. If I feel I can’t trust them now, how can I trust that the ballot I cast won’t end up getting ripped up hours later?”

First the CPC argued that EC is biased because they said the liberals did the exact same thing. This was proven to be wrong.

Then CPC argued bias because they claimed they would have offered the documents had they been requested as per the EC manual. This was proven to be based on the false assertion the documents sought were the same ones referred to in the manual, and they are not.

Then the CPC argued bias because they claimed the LPC was receiving special consideration regarding their leadership loans. This was proven to be false when it was discovered CPC candidates requested and received the very same extensions.

The only “evidence” you have of bias is the allegation that the CBC was tipped off about the raid, and yet you have absolutely zero evidence it was EC who tipped them off. The RCMP have a history of tipping the media off about raids on political figures, but this has all been conveniently ignored by the BT’s.

EC was correct to be concerned, and the fact there is evidence of that concern means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

“The RCMP have a history of tipping the media off about raids on political figures, but this has all been conveniently ignored by the BT’s.”

Link please??

Sure Joanne - just as soon as we get an independent body to investigate the NAFTA leak…

Except here there is NO evidence that EC leaked anything. They do not have to submit to an investigation every time the CPC cry foul.

Except here there is NO evidence that EC leaked anything. They do not have to submit to an investigation every time the CPC cry foul.

I’m just saying that something smells fishy. I think ChuckerCanuk would agree with me.

“Funny how I am always able to back up my claims when you ask, and yet you can never reciprocate…”

Actually Gayle - I am not “aware” of those situations - could you PLEASE provide a link. After all - fair is fair - if you demand links, you should reciprocate.

Just because you say it does not make it so.

“nice try being cute though”

Now was that so hard providing that link - thank you.

Except here there is NO evidence that EC leaked anything. They do not have to submit to an investigation every time the CPC cry foul.

Nope…investigations, and inquiry’s and HOC committees, are only for when the Liberals cry fowl.

ROTFLMAO

CRSSARBP

CRSSARBP

O.K. That’s a new one to me

Cracking ribs, splitting sides, and raising BLOOD PRESSURE.

“Nope…investigations, and inquiry’s and HOC committees, are only for when the Liberals cry fowl.”

Cry fowl, AND have evidence. That latter part is pretty essential…

“proof” of what?

Why don’t you tell me what you are talking about

“No - so I am wondering when you will provide the links I asked you for yesterday over at DBT’s site…”

Ok Gayle - I went to TT and searched and nowhere can I find where you asked for a link - perhaps you could stay within the subjects of each blog as this vacilating back and forth is rather confusing.

Well tori, here is the scenario:

RCMP raid BC cabinet minister - it is leaked
RCMP name Ontario Minister in a warrant - it is leaked
RCMP raid CPC offices - it is leaked.

There is only one constant in all three scenarios. You do the math.

and you’re actually using the very same logic that you are trying to demonize…

Here’s an interesting story about non-action by EC when it’s a Liberal

LINK

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=7f221cb3-cc92-445c-9b93-9bd333569087&k=46501&p=2

I am not sure I get your point:

http://www.blairwilson.ca/news.aspx?id=289

This appears to have come to EC’s attention through a citizen’s tip. In and Out came to EC’s attention through an interview with a CPC candidate’s campaign manager.

There does not seem to be any differenc here. Is there something I am missing?

well, the way I see it, you’re between a rock and a hard place.

you use the same logic as others have here have to say that EC leaked info…

you say that these people have no proof, yet all you can do is offer up the same proof to back your claim that “The RCMP have a history of tipping the media off about raids on political figures, but this has all been conveniently ignored by the BT’s.”

So either you have to back down and say you actually have no proof, or you have to accept the proof offered by those here re: EC as yours is just the same as theirs.

which one is it?

no, I actually pointed out the error of your logic.

just a few posts ago, you were chirping that the RCMP have a history of leaks. I asked you to give me a link of your “proof” and found out that your proof for your assertion was just the same as those here re: EC.

The diff? You attack people’s logic as erroneous when you use the EXACT SAME LOGIC YOURSELF.

Now, in my books, that is called something…gosh…can’t seem to remember the word for it…I know it’s one you like to banter around here…

But I wont say it. You know what it is. Nothing more needs to be said

what point is that? that you’re just as guilty of doing what you profess to hate- pushing your opinion as “fact”?

but just a few posts ago you said you could prove the RCMP leaks info…even gave me a link and everything.

I just like calling you on your shit (or is it “shift” today?) It’s just too much damned fun!

Is it just as much fun when I admit it? Because I did that a long time ago.

Good thing you guys are getting your licks in now. I’m taking a day off tomorrow and comment moderation will be on.

gayle,

as you would like to say, you’d have a point if I ever claimed the EC leaked info to the press.

I have not. But then again, I also have not asserted that the RCMP leaked info- only to have my “proof” refuted. Or attempted to use the same “proof” that I’ve attacked others for using. Because, well…the rules are different for me!

Go to bed, Gayle. You need some rest.

And yes, it is still fun

“And yes, it is still fun”

Well then you need a life my friend. Such a small “victory”.

Clearly I have been getting to you…

And yet you do not want to answer the question? I am not asking about what you think happened - I am asking about the state of the evidence that we now know about. After all, the CPC claims are based on that evidencee, or rather, the lack thereof. (and yes, we are talking about bias - which is the point of this post if you recall…)

See, I am not above admitting when I am wrong. I agree I should have said the same thing I said when this issue originally came up - which is that it is more likely the leak came from EC than the RCMP, given the history of RCMP raids being leaked (as I noted above).

You, however, really do your best to avoid the issue. That is quite telling actually…

It was a typo AG.

It should read:

I agree I should have said the same thing I said when this issue originally came up - which is that is more likely the leak came from the RCMP than from the EC…

As you point out, I have argued extensively there is no evidence the leak came from EC. There is a history of leaks associated with RCMP raids, thus it is more likely the leak came from the RCMP.

gayle,

I’m not avoiding the issue. I just don’t like to go all half-cocked making assumptions and pushing untested theories without getting all the information.

The thing I’ve noticed is that it is rarely the case that all the info is open for public consumption from the get-go. Why comment on something until all the info is out there?

As for bias, we’ve already had this discussion ad nauseum- ironically on Jo’s blog. Do we really need to go thru it again?

You know, this reminds me of hockey. Do you watch hockey, gayle? Anyway, have you ever noticed that when one team scores a goal, it is usually followed by the other team scoring in quick succession? It happens a lot. My working theory is that when the first team scores, they are still on that “scoring high” and when that happens, the team gets sloppy. Then there is a turnover, and suddenly the other team scores, too.

It doesn’t always happen, tho. Sometimes that first team is very disciplined and focussed and does not allow the other team a chance to score a goal, too.

Just something to think about

the point that you are just as guilty of faulty logic?

no problem! glad to help out with that