[ridenrain]

Sorry. Didn't see the respond, not like it's on topic or anything...

Is knowing about a crime but not reporting it a crime, yes or no?


If the offer was to support a campaign, then its not.
If the offer was to buy a vote, as the Liberals are demanding, then it is.

If you believe a crime has been committed and you don't report it, you are breaking the law.

[Wally_Sconce]

By dirty politics, I was referring to Dion, and his implying to teh public that Harpo was involved, even though Dona Cadman herself claims otherwise.

thus, dirty politics.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Sorry. Didn't see the respond, not like it's on topic or anything...

Is knowing about a crime but not reporting it a crime, yes or no?


If the offer was to support a campaign, then its not.
If the offer was to buy a vote, as the Liberals are demanding, then it is.

If you believe a crime has been committed and you don't report it, you are breaking the law.

You can't hold MArtin accountable for not reporting what you don't even consider a crime and you can't hold Dion responsible for that.

Furthermore you can't simply absolve Harper because Martin didn't report it. He likely didn't have all the facts.

The fact is you simply can't stand that Harper tride to bribe a dying man.

Nothing you say can change that.

No D3S response. No red herring about adscam. Nothing.

Your corrupt party tride to bribe a dying man in order to force an election.

I don't know who is more pathetic, them for trying to do it or you for condoning it.

On yer bike skippy. You have been exposed as the hack you are.

[Wally_Sconce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX, read Dona's statement, then practise what you preach!!!

Right back at you slick.

Now you will admit that you respect Chretien and Martin and acknowledge they are innocent of all corruption charges and had nothign at all to do with adscam.

Thanks for coming out.

Practising what you preach is somehow hinged to what I say? do you have no balls?

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

DerbyX, read Dona's statement, then practise what you preach!!!

Right back at you slick.

Now you will admit that you respect Chretien and Martin and acknowledge they are innocent of all corruption charges and had nothign at all to do with adscam.

Thanks for coming out.

Practising what you preach is somehow hinged to what I say? do you have no balls?

You mean when you said that anybody who votes for the same party after 8 years is a moron?

Pratice what you preach indeed.

[Wally_Sconce]

derby, if want to call the CPC corrupt based on something that did not involve Harper, then your own standard should apply to the Adscam.....even if Cretien and Martin did not involve themselves with the adscam then Liberals are corrupt.

Practise what you preach, Derby!!!

[ryan29]

stemmer stemmer:

What insurance company in the world would underwrite a million dollar insurance policy to a man dying from cancer?

none , industry experts have allready said this policy would be impossible to get .
and there is no proof that one even existed or was offered to him.
other that second hand claims from donna cadman who has no way to prove it did in fact happen. no hard evidence like copy of policy or insurance company saying they were approached by these 2 men looking for one .
this claim should be considered bogus until someone provides serious evidence that it is true .

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

derby, if want to call the CPC corrupt based on something that did not involve Harper, then your own standard should apply to the Adscam.....even if Cretien and Martin did not involve themselves with the adscam then Liberals are corrupt.

Practise what you preach, Derby!!!

Not in the least skippy.

1) Its you guys who bent over backwards trying to prove Harpers innocence, a complete about face from the Liberals.

What goes around comes around.

2) Chetrien and Martin were cleared after a very public inquiry that Martin himself called.

3) Harper already admits that he order them to offer Cadman "financial considerations" in exchange for him voting the way Harper wanted. Thats what makes him guilty, his own words. The million dollar insurance policy is just a detail that he may not have been party to.

The guilty part is just the attempt to curry Chucks vote with the promise of "financial considerations". Its not as if it wasn't wrong as long as they don't go over a certain dollar amount. Thsi isn't the price is right.

4) If you really want anybody to accept your logic then you must state unequivically that in order for Harper to be innocent then so must Chretian and Martin or they are all guilty.

Its black letter law.

Either way everything you have said about either party has been wrong.

[DerbyX]

ryan29 ryan29:

stemmer stemmer:

What insurance company in the world would underwrite a million dollar insurance policy to a man dying from cancer?

none , industry experts have allready said this policy would be impossible to get .
and there is no proof that one even existed or was offered to him.
other that second hand claims from donna cadman who has no way to prove it did in fact happen. no hard evidence like copy of policy or insurance company saying they were approached by these 2 men looking for one .
this claim should be considered bogus until someone provides serious evidence that it is true .

You don't get it do you?

1) Just the fact Harper was offering "financial consideration" alone is the crime, not the insurance policy.

2) They don't need to actually have it go through, just get him to vote as they want. I doubt they had any intention of following through with their bribe after the vote. Its not as if Chuck could turn around and sue them for non-payment of bribe.

3) There is plenty of hard evidence. Its just that you are too stupid to see it.

[Wally_Sconce]

I'm getting a good laugh at the fact that you won't practise what you preach, based on my statements. I didn't know that I held so much power over you.

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

I'm getting a good laugh at the fact that you won't practise what you preach, based on my statements. I didn't know that I held so much power over you.

Honestly, its real cute that you want to keep up the con tradition of not understanding how to read. It really is.

I just don't have time or experience with toddlers in order to properly explain it to you.

[ryan29]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ryan29 ryan29:

stemmer stemmer:

What insurance company in the world would underwrite a million dollar insurance policy to a man dying from cancer?

none , industry experts have allready said this policy would be impossible to get .
and there is no proof that one even existed or was offered to him.
other that second hand claims from donna cadman who has no way to prove it did in fact happen. no hard evidence like copy of policy or insurance company saying they were approached by these 2 men looking for one .
this claim should be considered bogus until someone provides serious evidence that it is true .

You don't get it do you?

1) Just the fact Harper was offering "financial consideration" alone is the crime, not the insurance policy.

2) They don't need to actually have it go through, just get him to vote as they want. I doubt they had any intention of following through with their bribe after the vote. Its not as if Chuck could turn around and sue them for non-payment of bribe.

3) There is plenty of hard evidence. Its just that you are too stupid to see it.

plenty of hard evidence ? what evidence have they shown ? second hand claims are not considered hard evidence

and no one has found anything that says or shows chuck cadman saying he was offered this insurance policy . which they claim he was offered .
without out him saying this happened how can they ever prove such an event ever happened ?

[DerbyX]

ryan29 ryan29:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ryan29 ryan29:

stemmer stemmer:

What insurance company in the world would underwrite a million dollar insurance policy to a man dying from cancer?

none , industry experts have allready said this policy would be impossible to get .
and there is no proof that one even existed or was offered to him.
other that second hand claims from donna cadman who has no way to prove it did in fact happen. no hard evidence like copy of policy or insurance company saying they were approached by these 2 men looking for one .
this claim should be considered bogus until someone provides serious evidence that it is true .

You don't get it do you?

1) Just the fact Harper was offering "financial consideration" alone is the crime, not the insurance policy.

2) They don't need to actually have it go through, just get him to vote as they want. I doubt they had any intention of following through with their bribe after the vote. Its not as if Chuck could turn around and sue them for non-payment of bribe.

3) There is plenty of hard evidence. Its just that you are too stupid to see it.

plenty of hard evidence ? what evidence have they shown ? second hand claims are not considered hard evidence

and no one has found anything that says or shows chuck cadman saying he was offered this insurance policy . which they claim he was offered .
without out him saying this happened how can they ever prove such an event ever happened ?

Learn to read.

[Benoit]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Benoit Benoit:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Unless you can prove that these 2 distinguished and respected politicians were the people you mention, you're simply setting youreself up for another lawsuit.

Rarely seen, a distinguished and respected politician is someone who keeps all his files open to public scrutiny.

So would you say that you have no proof that the 2 distinguished servents of the people were party bagmen

In white-collar crimes, it is standard procedure to go for a plea bargain with aides.

[Wally_Sconce]

how is offering finincial consideration any different than Cretien threatening to boot the women mlas out of the Liberal party if the dont vote for bill C-68?