Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next

Sorry, kid. Not interested in engaging in a pointless discussion with you.

   

Where do I send Iggy my $20?

   

Hey Iggy, why don't you change your moniker to "AlwaysForPluggyRug"

Then I can have the $10,00.00.

   

Completely O/T - It's kinda nice to see more posters sporting Party colours, Lily has got her Lib button on now (Rah!) and PluggyRug has a pretty blue button Pluggy, WE have a Jacuzzi in our clubhouse - what have you guys got? . Mr_Canada wears the same buttons I do (clever lad) but he's underage so he's not allowed in the members' Bar yet.

You wouldn't believe Trevor's tab . I hear Dion will be holding a $500 a plate dinner to help him pay it off.

   

Lily, you are a blind supporter,
Your argument is rather simplistic and in fact unreasonable.

a. Everyone who questions a win is a sour grape sufferer.

b. Lily must learn nothing from the past.

c. Anyone who points out weaknesses of the leaders is anti party.

Face it, Lady, you are a blind supporter.

And find a better line. I am not put off by words like 'sour grapes' and 'sore loser' and 'move on'.

All the other camps flagrantly violated the ethical question of borrowings. Some, like Kennedy and Iggy used borrowing only as bridge funds (ask your banker what it means, if you have difficulty with numbers,) others simply violated the rules.

In the process, they had to create some desperate and disparate alliances, just to try and get their money back!

For all your support, Dion is in big trouble.

   

Still OT.

Don't need a Jacuzzi...us Conservatives take a bath once a week whether we need it or not.

   

The initial reaction on this board is that people who protest are sore losers. But slowly, I expect people will look beyond 'why' people speak (that is the logical fallacy of ad-hominem) and look impartially at what is said.

For instance, Firecat, while trying to make a point, has really confirmed what I was saying. The only reason to have Dion in a Kennedy fund raiser, is to get funds! And people are currying favour with Dion, while paying Kennedy! Just as he admits that an Ignatieff fundraiser would have less appeal, so would a Kennedy event.

If there are no factions, and there is unity, then why not a Dryden fund raiser, or a Volpe event? Why start with Kennedy?

Is Lily's call for unity, or that of Firecat only for Iggy supporters? Does it not apply to Dion?
I think slowly Firecat will concede that this is a short sighted view. Who will buy tickets for the Dion-Kennedy $500 a plate bash? Is it conservative supporters?

No.

The people who will pay up are simple souls like Lily and Firecat, but with more money. Some, like these two, will not even realise what is happening or where the money is going. But when the call comes for election support, most will think they have already paid! And used their tax rebates.

So actually, we are allowing a system where the leader dips into the future contributions of the party, to pay back his borrowings which paid for his victory which helped him to dip into the funds.

It was the lack of people who spoke out which allowed Chretien to allow the sponsorship scandal to happen. One of the silent people was Dion.

Should Lily and Firecat be allowed to silence me, by calling me names?

Or should we understand the evil of unrestricted borrowings for grabbing a leadership?

Make no mistake, I am an honest person, and I believe the old adageIn my opinion, Iggy is a hundred times greater for playing a straight and honest game. If he won the way Dion did, I would have hung my head in shame.

Perhaps I would have even joined the conservatives, who knows

   

Welcome to the right "Right"

   

[
Not a problem, Firecat, not a problem at all.

My duty as a proponent is to give an opportunity, if you do not take it, it is your problem to convince people that you have sufficient grey matter to differentiate a liberal from a conservative.

   

Is the foundation of your objection then that these dinners to offset a candidate's campaign expenses drain money that would or should otherwise go into party coffers?

   

Thanks Pluggy. Keep place for me while I search for the honest man in the Liberal Party. I think we can rule out Lily and Firecat, ethics do not appear to be their priority.

There was a joke about the Liberal Party during the Chretien scandals, someone in the corridor in Ottawa ran into Diogenes. So trying to be casual, he asked him "Hi Diogenes, are you still looking for an honest man?'

And Diogenes, rubbing his head replied 'Naw, I just got mugged and robbed, now I am looking for my lamp!'

   

I wonder what ways Always4Iggy feels are acceptable to finance a campaign. Should only millionaires be allowed to run for high office?

   

Thanks Firecat, now we are talking about the topic, rather than the personalities involved.

My objection is as follows:

a. The rule that no individual can contribute more than 5000 is a good one. It protects poor from the money power of the rich.

b. Borrowing is a way to allow the rich to evade the rights of the poor. For instance, Rae had one person give him over 800,000 dollars. To match that, Iggy would, have to find thousands of contributors!

c. Borrowing is essentially dishonest, since only the winner can repay.

d. Helping a losing candidate to repay borrowings is a way of buying support! In this case, some ugly negotiations must have happened, for Kennedy to cross over.

e. Borrowing encourages excessive expenses on winning leadership, and paying back takes away from party funds, indirectly.

   

I must point out to you, Firecat, that the rules apply to one's own money as well as to other people's money. You cannot spend your own money beyond the $5000 limit any more than others can spend for you!

Borrowing is a loophole, but needs to be plugged.

Small borrowings may be required, initially in a campaign, to get known and liked one needs publicity. But the idea that Dion can raise as much borrowings as contributions or that Rae can exceed his contributions with borrowings is, well, unethical.

Incidentally Bob Rae got the money from his brother, and one brother was in cahoots with Chretien!

When Bob collapsed, over 700 chretien groupies jumped over to Dion. Who negotiated what?

Dion on his part, personally borrowed over 400,000, and only Kennedy had reasonable borrowings. But of course, Kennedy had a professional call centre of his brother in law, I wonder if that was accounted for correctly

I love Iggy. He refused to play all these funny games.

   

You shouldn't have to rely on others to state your proposition clearly.
Now that you have allow me to address your points.


a) I agree
b) completely contradicts the rule you correctly refernced in (a)

c) ridiculous. If you cannot find suporters to loan you for your campaign it's because they don't believe you can win. Take the hint.



d) Yes, of course, one rewards the "kingmaker" else why should he drop out of the race for you? If Iggy had dropped out and supported the eventual winner he'd enjoy the benefits too. You must be practical. Politics is a risk. It's a horse-race like it or not . Back the wrong horse you lose your money. The lottery winner shares with his friends not his opponents.

e) People will only lend you as much as much as they think you can repay and they all ended up spending about the same amount. As to soiphoning of from party funds, you're really reaching. Liberals who support such events also support general party events. People who can pay $500 a plate have more money they will be giving to the Party. I also believe that anything the candidate raised that exceeds his campaign expenses goes to the Party anyway.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next