Eye of Scheer over Peace Tower of Sauron #LordOfTheBills

What’s going on inside the House of Commons today is no laughing matter. In fact, Minister Tony Clement told me that if I don’t like his joking about the step back from democratic debate in Canada, I shouldn’t read his tweets. Seriously.

Artists are hitting back.
Here’s a good one I found on a facebook page. It inspired the following adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Stephen Harper is now Lord Of The Bills.

In the Land of Ottawa where the Shadows lie.

See Stephen Harper rise against an Omnibus budget with arguments Elizabeth May put again to the Speaker?

In case Twitter goes away, here is the text:
@amirightfolks @kady #LordOfTheBills One Bill to rule them all (C-38) #Omnibudget
@CdnPolly @MeganLeslieMP #LordOfTheBills One Bill to find them, (C-30) #TellVicEverything
@LexyCameron @pmoharper #LordOfTheBills One Bill to bring them all (C-31) http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-31/
@fem_progress @ElizabethMay @cfhorgan #LordOfTheBills One Bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them (C-10) http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-10/


78 responses to “Eye of Scheer over Peace Tower of Sauron #LordOfTheBills

  1. In the next omni Harper bucket list will be a bill to open up campaign advertising so that individuals and corporations can give as much as they want- just like in America.

  2. Sadly, the minority ‘60%’ have yet to realise that even if broken up the government can pass each and every piece of legislation. At will.

    All the Greenlibdipp party is interested in is reducing government efficiency. Hey! How is that socialist European economy doin’? Or Ontarios?

  3. Hey Redintheface, long time no ranting. What, is that bad news in the front page of the post and citizen? What, Dean Del Mastro forged documents to send in to Elections Canada? What, EC has the Deli Maestro’s bank accounts and none of what he said shows up there? What, Harper is still personally backing him? Well, looks like a busy day of spin and misdirection for you, eh? Better get at it boy.

    Oh, by the way.
    Every single conservative MP voted for every single thing on the omnibus bill.
    That means every single MP supports gutting environmental controls, delaying retirement and a host of other things that are going to come back to haunt them before 2015, when the conservatives have to face the people again.

    Better get at it.

    • Ha ha “deflection” again eh G!!??!! I guess, in your mind, it’s better to turn over control to paidlobyist/’charity’ special interest groups? Read Fruitfly Dave and Forest Unethics.

      Sorry about your english illiteracy. Higher paid teechurs would fix that.

      • The Conbot Redjefff, troll and English lecturer, returns after eating his morning Ontarios with milk, to fight for government “efficiency”.

      • Not to worry Sask! Efficiency is nothing you’ll ever be accused of!

        By the way, when will you start talking Harry Potter politics? Tommy-Boy sure looks like Gollum tho’!! Har har!!!

      • You mean paid lobbyists like the ethical oil crowd, or the Heartland institute, right? They’re the ones getting all the big money from the foreign crowds, right? That’s the issue that was bothering you, and not allowing you precious time to defend the deli maestro, right?

        Better get at it.
        Here’s a helpful hint in your quest for finding foreign funding of lobbyists.

      • No G… I’m talking about paid lobbyists who masquerade as charities. Who aren’t charities. Good Lord G… Sierra Club????? They took money from Chesapeke Energy (an oil and gas company) to the tune of $26,000,000 in the US. The video you referenced even said that some of the money came to Canada!!!! As for “foreign” funded oil lobbyist proof (from your reference) you do know that Enbridge, the ONLY company named, is Canadian… don’t you? You are aware that Canadians aren’t foreigners in Canada right?

        All kidding aside, if English isn’t your mother tongue and you have problems with it, just tell me and I’ll use less complicated words. I do think it’s important that you understand, but perhaps you may be becoming confused.

        Ethical oil is a non-profit organisation, NOT a charity. (HINT HINT they don’t issue charity tax receipts!!!!!!) Forest Unethics and Fruitfly Dave, on the other hand, are lobbyists pretending to be charities. Taking charity tax breaks, The fact that they gave up that charitable status without even the SLIGHTEST fight, surely, shows how profoundly illegal their activities as a ‘charity’ were.

        Also, you are aware that Heartland Institute is an American organisation aren’t you? As such they are required to follow American law. Although it may make you seem (and feel) ‘intellectual’ it’s really nothing more than a vapid talking point and “deflection” from the issue I’ve raised. Incidentally that $26 million alone is 6 times more than Heartlands ENTIRE budget for ALL of its endeavours!!!

        In short, the Right Honourable Conservative Government isn’t trying to silence environmentalist… it’s trying to catch tax cheats. Sadly, these seem to be one and the same.

  4. That was a really brilliant retort from Tony Clement. He’s got a lot of practice. His financiers in Parry Sound pay him to wear a jester’s costume and play the fool at their retreats.

    (He doesn’t like doing it though. He thinks it’s demeaning and he’s right. He just knows he’d be working in a prison cafeteria without their assistance, so to hell with his dignity!)

  5. On behalf of all of Saskboy’s readers and commenters I would like to thank and congratulate Prime Minister the Right Honourable Stephen Harper and the majority government Conservative Party of Canada for passing their budget legislation and defeating any and all ‘amendments’. Thanks to the opposition for doing their purpose… opposing. Thanks for getting forgone conclusions done in 23 hours, things that would have taken months otherwise, quickly and efficiently and on track to making Canada an even stronger economy in the future! Better luck in a few years to those who didn’t get their way.

  6. Enjoy the majority while it lasts, redintheface. The Deli Maestro will be the first one out the door, followed by Opitz in July. Then I expect that the Council of Canadians will take another 7 seats out this fall. After that Elections Canada will file the report that will end the conservative majority and add to more our already overcrowded jail problem.

    And when the party merger happens after that, the conservatives will be locked out of power for a goodly amount of time. So I’d give you a couple of years to enjoy your blogging before you have to find a real job.

    It’ll be a fine day when our country is represented by the majority of voters.

    Next election time, every con MP up for re-election is going to have to face the people and say they voted for every single amendment on c38. That’ll haunt them.

    • Thanks G, I’m certainly enjoying the majority Conservative government! As for the Cowncil of Greenlibdipps… well you don’t quite understand how our electoral system works here… do you?

      I truely hope that the Greenlibdipp party will become a reality. Alas, each group is so power hungry that each will expect the other to be subservient. That and Tommy-Boy Monkeyhair is no E. Jack U. Layton!!!!! Not savey enough for the Toronto champagne socialists for one, not in the realm of reality to keep Quebec as the Quebec Democratic Party for another!!!! Seriously, the QDP is nothing but a regional party now… even Reform had wider representation!

      Thanks also for realizing that there is nothing you knotted knickered nannies can do about it for “a couple of years” at the very least!!!!

      Except bray of course!!!! Har har!!!

      • Since we know that robocalling effected about 3% of the vote, which was the difference between majority and minority government, we can definitively say that this government is illegitimate.

        This government’s power is based on electoral fraud.
        You can celebrate that as much as you like, redintheface.

        Me, I’m patiently awaiting the law to take its course.

      • Poor G. Your level of ‘knowledge’ is so woefully limited I’m not surprised that you jump to the conclusions you do!!! I’m still waiting (for a number of months now) for the name of even a SINGLE person who lost their opportunity to vote. See not a single person has come forward. Then again it wouldn’t surprise me that a Greenlibdipp voter would become confused over a taped phone call… after all, someone must be buying telemarketer products!!!!!!

        [ADMIN note: Lori Bruce. There are many more who came forward with credible information that they were illegally contacted by live callers claiming to represent Elections Canada, and misdirected them. Your claim that “not a single person has come forward” is demonstrably bogus. Besides, the law doesn’t rely on victim testimony to prosecute, it’s dependent upon a guilty mind and a guilty act. Both are easily demonstrated, and your bogus and moot deflection only further injures the party you support.

        To claim simultaneously that the robocalls had no effect, and that people also respond to telemarketing, is not just mind boggling, it exposes your “intellectual” dishonesty. I suppose whoever paid for the robocalls (illegal and otherwise) did so knowing they wouldn’t have any effect other than to put their reputations and standing into disrepute. Idiot!]

        Question: How much does it burn your britches that every morning you wake up you do so with the realization that you’re not going to get your way?

      • Ah, the old misdirection plan.
        The issue is not a case of who ‘lost an opportunity to vote’, but instead who committed electoral fraud trying to either change a vote by pretending to be another party, inhibiting a person from voting by pretending to be elections canada or even forcibly shutting down polling amongst other charges.

        For a start, redintheface, why don’t you go to the very well researched and documented wikipedia page dedicated to your superiors handiwork.
        That’s right here:

        Once you take a look there, you’ll see plenty of evidence, including a signed affidavit from a Guelph riding saying over 150 people showed up to a fake address sent out by conservative robocalling.

        Then if you compare that data with the study sponsored by the Council of Canadians you can come up with the 3% of the vote that was changed by illegal conservative operatives, like you and your ilk.

        As for your ‘not a single person’ claim, its patently ridiculous.
        Take it to Elections Canada and they’ll give you a list of 31,000 names who contacted them alleging electoral fraud.

      • Oh my God… Gsap!!! You’re a wikipedia scholar??????? I should have known as much!!!! NOW I understand why you seem so befuddled!!!

        As for the Clowncil of Greenlibdipp Canadians, hard to take seriously a biased political hack front group. Then again some folks are gluttons for propaganda!!!

        Lastly, you don’t seem to understand the difference between (as you claim) ‘electoral fraud’ and an online petition. Luckily Elections Canada does, but, par for a wiki-scholar.

      • Wow, what scathing work, redjefff.

        You sure showed me. Insulting wikipedia like that, wow, such detailed and well thought out criticism that really shows just how far the dunning-kruger effect has set in with you.

        Seriously, the page has references to all allegations and investigations. Its typical deflection to try to argue that the source itself is tainted when faced with substantial evidence. Standard fare from those who have no reasonable counter arguments. I have to conclude that you are so partisan as to not care when those you support break the law, as you have not once admitted that electoral fraud is wrong and those committing it should be jailed. Instead its just denial and deflection.

        In other words, you support breaking the law as long as its your side doing it. Did you personally aid this program, is that why you back it?
        Do you really think its ok for the conservatives to break the law?

      • So “dunning-kruger effect” IS a talking point!!! Did you just hear about it this morning? Seems you’re in a mad rush to show everyone your newfound lingo!!!! Like most teens you’re just too predictable. Har har!!!

        Have you figured out what an online petition is yet?

      • I understand that Elections Canada has received 31,000 complaints and the majority of those are from an online petition. I also understand that typical responses to offensive calls fall in the 1% range, so 800 complaints in one riding is understood to represent 80,000 offences.

        Do you understand that we are talking about electoral fraud and the cheating of democracy?

        Do you still support cheating of democracy and illegal actions?
        Do you think a party that one a majority by cheating should still be in power?

      • And therein lies the errors of your liberal arts math ways. Your ‘understanding’ is based on ficticious and false reasoning. Only a mathematical illiterate could concoct fantasy results based on an internet petition.

        Like the rest of your ‘reasoning’ it becomes an exersize in imagination. Fantasy numbers to self confirm a fantasy hypothesis.

        Then again, a fantasy world is the only ‘reality’ Greenlibdipps will have for quite some time!

        That and Greenlibdipp online petitions!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Har har!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Where did I use the figures from an ‘internet petition’ redintheface?
        You’re making things up.

        My math was based on direct numbers of robocall complaints.
        From the wiki:
        On March 29, Elections Canada reported that they had received 800 reports from voters who had been robocalled with misleading polling information. In the Guelph investigation alone, Elections Canada is aware of at least 7,600 robocalls directing voters to the wrong voting station

        We know also that there are complaints of calls in 200 ridings, and a minimum of 7,600 in Guelph alone. Try multiplying 7,600 x 200 ridings for one guess. Or you could try multiplying the 800 direct reports by 100 (using the 1% of calls reported figure) to come up with the 80,000 probable calls.

        Neither of those numbers are based of ‘internet petitions’.
        But I don’t expect you are smart enough to understand that.

        Of course, the conservatives could clear this all up by releasing all records of robocalls and scripts. But they aren’t offering to do that, are they?

      • Poor poor G. Making up numbers out of thin air won’t make your liberal arts math any more ‘real’. First 7 thousand, then 31,000, then 80,000… the fantasy numbers just keep getting more rediculous.

        Then again as you readily admit your sums are based on “for one guess”… or another!!!!

        I guess the illegal union bribe money the Quebec Democratic Party is ok tho’?

      • Your bosses could easily clear this up, redintheface. Just ask them to out pierre poutine and those guilty instead of making the whole party guilty by association. Then we’d know the full numbers.

        Until then, its tainted the whole election, and the full party.

    • Nice try. The number I have quoted are from the most reputable sources available. 800 direct reports of electoral fraud at Elections Canada times standard 1% of fraudulent telemarketer/robocalls typically reported = 80,000.

      That’s the best number until Elections Canada reports or your bosses come clean.

      Maybe you can your masters to supply you with better talking points that include some numbers for you to quote.

      Say, 80,000 infractions X 5 years in jail for a start.

      • Precisely. Your “best number” is nothing more than a figment of your leftist imagination!!!! Created for political expediency, amplified by a factor of 100 and self confirmed by an INTERNET on line poll.

        For a liberal arts artiste that IS scientific proof!!!!! Har har har!!!!!

      • Just tell your overlords to let you into the CIMS vault and clear it up for all of us, ok?

        Until then we’ll use the best numbers available to work out estimates.
        We could try to use the 7600 know calls made by Pierre Poutine (are you Pierre?) times the 200 ridings known to have had robocalls made and come up with 152,000 estimated robocalls. Like that one any better?

        Get your bosses to come up with better numbers, until then, these are the best numbers out there.

      • First 7,000, then 31,000, then 80,000 now 152,000…..??????? Why not just make up more numbers? They’d be all equally (ir)relevant.

        I love liberal arts mathematicians.

      • Redjefff fits the definition of a delusional man now; he can’t tell the difference between facts and fiction.

        The 800 credible complaints have now been confirmed to be higher at at least 1100, in a report to Parliament (a court), further exposing Redjefff’s claims as erroneous.

        “During a committee appearance before MPs last week, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand said the agency has received 1,100 complaints about misleading election calls,”

        You’re right on track Gzap, while Redjefff has been utterly demolished by evidence.


        I’m going to start removing any further comments from Redjefff that say otherwise. The Internet is already full enough from his stupid/wrong comments.

      • Hey, Saskboy, don’t delete redintheface. He’ll just scream censorship and its quite fun and good practice demolishing his attempts at reason.

        Though I’d be happy to find his source and find some con websites to troll around, for a sense of fairness.

        And redintheface, as Saskboy pointed out, the math is based of real numbers. Given we’re looking at possibly 100,00 crimes, are you still ok defending it?

      • In answer to my question “name one person who lost their chance to vote by a robocall” Sask’s “ADMIN note: Lori Bruce. There are many more who came forward with credible information…”

        From Lori Bruce’s own words “At that point, he told me that my voting location had changed. I, at that point, said no, it’s at the same location it always is.”

        Looks like she DIDN’T lose her vote despite the Saskispin.

        As for the numbers, which is it now???? 800? 1,100? 7,000? 31,000? 80,000? 100,000? 152,000? You’ve claimed them all, based on liberal arts ‘scientific’ analysis!!!!!!! Har har!!!!

        Why don’t you just show everyone the cornerstone of leftist ideology and censor? Ban!

        By the way, I’m still waiting for your “defense of the poor” post that you used as an excuse to censor my Earth Day comments!!! Har har 2.0!!!!

      • I see your attempt at logic.
        1 person didn’t fall for the attempted fraud, so therefore the 80,000 or 152,000 possible other attempts at fraud should not count.

        2 easy problems with that one, buddy.
        a) obviously 1 failed attempt doesn’t mean others didn’t succeed
        b) attempted electoral fraud is still a crime

        And until you get your bosses to open the CIMS vault, these are the best numbers out there. It appears you, like your bosses, don’t understand the difference between scientific method and ideology.

      • Actually the logic is thus….

        If not a single voter lost their opportunity to cast a ballot then the Elections Canada sanctioned vote tally is correct. As such the election results are indeed, as has already been shown, legitimate.

        I guess it’s a fact neither you nor Saski considered.

      • Fortunately we have a study to rely on for this guestimate, redintheface.

        According to the Ekos study commissioned by the Council of Canadians:

        Mr. Graves said Ekos found that 1.5 per cent of voters surveyed in the seven ridings stayed home because of calls concerning polling station location changes – and 0.1 per cent, or 1/20th of the total, identified themselves as Conservative supporters. Mr. Graves said the margin of error in this finding is 0.4 per cent.

        He said a vote shift of less than 1.3 per cent in six of the seven ridings was all that was needed to shift the outcome.


        So, once again, according to the best science out there on the matter, robocalls quite likely changed the outcome of the election and you are working for those who got into power through fraud.

        Your logic has once again found to be faulty and not based on any science, much like your masters dogma.

      • To a liberal arts artiste “the best science out there on the matter” would indeed be a survey!! Har har!!

        And one commisioned by the Clowncil of Public Sector Unionized Canadians no less!!!!!! Har har 2.0!!!!

        By your OWN admission “a study to rely on for this guestimate”!!!!!

        A “GUESTIMATE”!!??!!???!!! Har har 3.0!!!!!!

        Your entire ‘defense of democracy’ and shrieking knotted knickers hysteria has a “guestimate” as a factual spine???????

        By the way, are you paid by the Clowncil? How much do you suckle from the taxpayers teat?

        PS… let me inform you my liberal arts friend, that is NOT the scientific method. Had you either a mathematical or scientific bone in your body you would be well aware of this.

      • I’ll take it that you cede the argument from this post, redintheface.

        That’s the only conclusion possible when your reply is down to random insults and harharhars. You haven’t been able debate the merit of the numbers, the math or the method or results of the study. All you’re left with is insults.

        See you in court, and hopefully justice will be done and we’ll see by-elections soon and charges against the conservative criminals who are responsible for destroying any legitimacy to the conservative rule.

      • You can’t “debate the merit of the numbers” if the numbers have no merit. 800- 152,000… might be arguable in the liberal arts but not math or science. The rationale of your choice in those numbers is dependent solely on the choosers wants and desires. It thus becomes a self-conviction debate to justify your initial irrational choice!

        As a liberal artiste you would never understand the circularity of your arguement.

        Feel free to cede till your heart’s content!!

        PS… Har har har!!!

      • That’s all you got?

        I had 800 direct reports of calls to elections canada (corrected to 1,100 as noted by Saskboy) x 1% reporting harassing calls (standard reporting rate) for an estimate of 110,000 calls (was 80,000). Both of those numbers are not guesses, EC reports 1,100 complaints.

        For the second method we used the 7,600 or so calls made by pierre poutine alone in Guelph and multiplied that by the 200 ridings reporting robocalls. Both of those numbers are reported by EC and legit. That estimate method gives us 152,000 robocalls.

        Go ahead, make your case that different numbers should be used. And provide links and reports, otherwise I’ll just conclude you’re still just blowing this out your ass.

      • Firstly “(corrected to 1,100 as noted by Saskboy) x 1% reporting harassing calls (standard reporting rate)” does not equal “110,000 calls”. You divide by 1%. That shows you’re more interested in talking points than mathematics.

        The rest of your ‘math’ is nothing but pure unadulterated speculation. Speculation derived from convenience. The enormity of the fudge factors and the relating of completely unrelated figures simply defies any math logic. It also renders any result invalid.

        In essence, you’re arguing the leftist version of ‘how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?’.

      • It certainly is when you use speculative numbers. Still waiting for that single name who lost their opportunity to vote.

        Note that even G figured out good ol’ Lori still voted.

        PS… I’m surprised that you pair of liberal arts mathematicians haven’t used on-line petition numbers with your fudge factor to caculate 3,100,000 people affected!!!! Har har!!!!

      • If you want a single name, go talk to Elections Canada, maybe they’ll give the list of 1,100 people who reported to them directly.

        I’d like to point out two things:
        1) you do not debate that a crime was committed and that it was by the conservatives.
        2) your debate is now only on whether the numbers are large enough to have shifted the results of the election.

        You continue to support the conservative parties use of fraudulent techniques despite not debating that it was illegal. Which means you support criminals and their actions and the cheating of our democracy.

        Only a true partisan would continue to support Nixon through watergate even as the crimes were revealed. You sir, are a hack.

      • Yet again, another “deflection” as a response to the rediculousness of your math. Par for the course.

        Still waiting for that single solitary name. Obviously you don’t have one. Yet this is the “biggest threat to democracy” Canada has ever faced.

        Question: Why is it you Greenlibdipp drama queens have no sense of proportion? Everything is a crisis. Any government policy you happen to disagree with is the beginning of the end. Any attempt to enforce existing rules about charities and political activity is interpreted by you as an attack on ‘our freedom to speak, our freedom to assemble and our freedom to participate’? Are you kids THAT unable to deal with life’s realities and adversities?

      • Deflection?
        I answered your question and then you went back to a previously answered ‘request’ for one name. That, my friend, is a deflection.

        It sure seems like its a lot of work for you to keep defending fraud.
        It leaves me wondering if you are:
        a) so immoral that you don’t care about breaking the law as long as your pals get in power and keep hiring you
        b) so stupid as to not actually understand any of the previous points (did you look up Dunning-Kruger yet?)
        c) paid by the reply, so it doesn’t matter what you say or if you understand it
        d) just using con talking points (first, ask for one singly name, second, challenge all numbers, third, just insult everyone, repeat)

        Which is it?

      • RedJefff very soon will pass *me* as the most frequent commenter on my blog. I’m not sure whether to be amused, or annoyed. I wouldn’t mind at all if he didn’t use his verbosity to defend crime and contamination for the greater Con good.

      • I guess that’s Greenlibdipp for ‘we don’t have a name’.

        As an aside, I find the word “contamination” interesting. Reinhard Heydrich used the word “disinfection”. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

        PS… I also love a math illiterate using “Dunning-Kruger”. Rather ironic! Har har!

      • Still wondering which of these best describes you, redintheface:

        It leaves me wondering if you are:
        a) so immoral that you don’t care about breaking the law as long as your pals get in power and keep hiring you
        b) so stupid as to not actually understand any of the previous points (did you look up Dunning-Kruger yet?)
        c) paid by the reply, so it doesn’t matter what you say or if you understand it
        d) just using con talking points (first, ask for one singly name, second, challenge all numbers, third, just insult everyone, repeat)

        Which is it?

      • Wow!!! Is there an echo chamber in here? Har har!!! Sounds like you’re an example of your own option “d” option “d” option “d”!! Har har 2.0!!!

        Just do the leftoid thing G… make up an answer that’s most convenient for you. It doesn’t have to make sense, that’s the beauty of liberal arts reasoning… it just has to matter to you. You can even use (!!snicker snicker!!) liberal arts math to prove it to yourself.

        For better ‘evidence’ you could start an on-line petition!!! That’s proof positive.

      • Looks like its d) the endless repeating of talking point.s

        Tell you what, if you get some evidence from your bosses or come up with a reasoned argument worth replying to, I’ll continue this argument.

      • I won’t, you became nothing more than an object of mockery a day and a half ago. After the liberal arts math i knew you would never understand. Nor had you any interest.

  7. Poor redintheface, he’s going to have a busy, busy night.
    Now the Ottawa Citizen is reporting that Elections Canada has depositions admitting that the deli maestro funnelled donations through his cousin Dave’s employees.

    So redintheface, shall we make it two questions you won’t answer? (and that wasn’t one of them).

    1) If Elections Canada’s reports are correct, do you think Del Mastro should continue in power or go to jail?

    2) Are you paid by some level of the conservative party?

    Go ahead, prove me wrong, answer the questions.

    • Tell you what G…. you answer ANY of the points I’ve raised in this post, instead of always “deflecting” reality and I may respond to your questions!! ;)

      Conversely you can take the lead and explain to everyone your union funding!

      • What points? You have points?
        And first off, I have no union funding.

        There’s one ‘point’ answered.
        So how about it, are you paid by any level of the conservative party or government?

      • [snarky ADMIN note: Question was “You have points?”, is this the question Redjefff is answering in this comment?]

        Answer: No.

        I think I’ve found the reason for your reading comprehension problem… it’s a gullibility issue. Here is my evidence….

        Question: which one of the following two statements was actually delivered during Question Period in the HOC?

        1. Stephen Harper: “I admit that my budget is a Trojan Horse, and that I will use it to slash the funding of any group that has the gall to disagree with Conservative policy.”

        2. Thomas Mulclair: “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already admitted that his Trojan Horse budget will be used to slash funding for any group that has the gall to disagree with Conservative policy.”

        Answer: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=5677475#Int-7650878

      • It is a gullibility issue, isn’t it.

        You’re willing to support fraud, lying and cheating.
        And I suspect its either because you are stupid, though you seem to be able to recite talking points fairly well, but more likely suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      • Thanks for admitting your gullibility. I don’t blame you, it’s probably just a failing of your school system!

        Nice “deflection” of a simple question… are you still figuring out the answer?

        Is “Dunning-Kruger effect.” a talking point for you? Or, as I suspect, did you hear someone else talk about it and think it would make you sound ‘intellectual’ also? (HINT HINT try using it in a sentence for practice!!)

      • Sure, how about:
        Redinthefacejefff is a clear example of someone suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, as someone who clearly believes they are smarter they in fact are, but isn’t smart enough to realize it isn’t true.

        Now, deflection of a question?
        You linked to transcripts, it was not a question, it was a rhetorical statement, no need to answer.

        Here is a clear question for you:
        Do you believe that Dean Del Mastro should resign as MP, given the evidence and statements showing up in the news?

      • Gsap, perhaps the news and it’s spin is all you need for your reality TV belief system. The rest of us need actual proof.

        Not online petitions from the disenchanted!

        Har har har!!!!!

        Nice (attempted) “deflection” tho’!

      • Won’t answer the question, will you, redintheface?

        Do you believe that Dean Del Mastro should resign as MP, given the evidence and statements showing up in the news?

      • Hey gzap,

        The maximum penalty for these illegal actions is five years in prison.

        I would think sending all the involved MPs, including the fake prime minister, to the slammer would necessitate a lot of by-elections, don’t you?

      • Once again G. If what you see on TV is good enough for you, God help you. It shows your level of gullibility. I on the other hand need proof in order to back up my opinions… not TV.

        Do you understand now? That there is a difference between TV and a court of law?

        I know, I know, for Greenlibdipps there isn’t, but for honest Canadians there is.

        PS… for Sask… still waiting for that single, solitary person that will admit they lost their chance to vote.

        [ADMIN note: Answered on the weekend already, you just missed it amongst your too-numerous comments. Lori Bruce, for one.]

      • TV? Once again, you show your ignorance, I have not referred once to TV.

        No, the evidence I quote comes from a variety of news sources, and note that you have not quoted one source or modicum of evidence to back yourself up.

        For evidence in the Del Mastro fraud, we have seen photocopies of a personal check, quotes from affidavits from Elections Canada, copies and analysis of forged invoices, sworn statements by his cousins employees. He hasn’t answered to any of those.

        For the robocall fraud, we have heard of 31,000 complaints and 800 direct reports, copies of illegal calls made by ‘pierre poutine’, reports of evidence linking the conservative master database, CIMS, to the calls, evidence of wiping records off the database by higher ups and the challenge by the PM himself to prove guilt.

        If your bosses were really innocent, they would have done as much to root out those guilty in order to not taint the whole party. But they haven’t, they’ve only challenged us to find the evidence, like you.

        The whole party is corrupt if they allow for this.

      • Yet not a single thing from a court of law. Seriously G if you want unbiased reporting you’ll have to watch or read Sunmedia. Their reporting got Davy Fruitfly Suzuki tossed from his ‘charity’ foundation because of his advocacy. Note that other TV (CBC) actually PROVIDED him with his criminal opportunity. Yeah, that’s not biased at all!!!!!! Har har!!!!!

        And Forest Unethics?

        Now go back to making up your numbers game!!! ;) At least that you’re good at!!!

      • You didn’t phrase that correctly, redintheface.

        Not yet in courts of law. Not yet. Justice takes time.

        Oh, and your source of information is Sunmedia? That’s it?

        hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

        That should just about end any arguments, you just shot your credibility up, cooked it on an open spit and then hired some federal civil servants to deliver it to you in a ceremony for new citizens.

      • Actually G it IS phrased correctly. It’s your illiteracy that won’t let you understand.

      • Lets be a bit more correct, then redintheface.

        How about, soon to be in the court of law, next Monday, in fact.
        That’s when oral arguments start for the case the Council of Canadians is bringing to court starts.

      • And therein lies the error of your ways. In the liberal arts you can have correct and more correct and more more correct. All the while never having to admit you’re wrong. In science you have right or wrong and no amount of spin will change that. Your soothsaying abilities notwithstanding.

        As for the Clowncil… just another way to funnel money to the QDP now that the union special interest slush money has been exposed and the guilty named. In a court.

      • Sure, and that’s why your boss Harper is busy destroying and gutting all scientific organizations that produce results contrary to his dogma (which is pretty much everyone).

        For the record, we are not talking liberal arts, but best estimates using confirmed numbers. That, my ranting friend, is the scientific method at work. And for contrast, you have produced no reputable, referenced debate.

  8. Not to mention deregulation of a political party.
    If I was a conservative I’d be working hard to make sure my name wasn’t associated with the brainiacs who started this fraud.

    In some ways, if they don’t put names to the guilty, it’ll be guilt by association and it would be easy to make the case that its the whole party trying to hide the crimes.

    • RedJefff doesn’t have anything to lose though. When there are multiple Cons sent to jail with DDM, he’ll simply walk away from his online ID and start a new one to tell us all how we have to put the Liberals in jail too.

      • B-b-but the Librullls!!!!

        Those harpercon scum are like Luca Magnotta saying “B-b-b-ut Jeffrey Dahmer!”

        Except for the fact that the harpercons are far, far, FAR worse than the Liberals ever were.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s