Racknine says Pat Martin defamed company

Fuck Rack Nine and their greasy lawyers.
The NDP MP was right to call these clowns out.

Outstanding. Doesn’t the NDP know it’s not okay to libel people without evidence?

Ah, the NDP Braintrust speaks….

absolute privilege. MPs commenting on issues of public interest cannot be held liable, particularly when a crime has clearly been committed. this is a frivolous lawsuit / posturing and will be thrown out of court.

Only if they say the words inside the House of Commons.

I wondered if NDP P.M. was going to finally forget one of these times that he had left the “House” and it appears that may just be the case.
It’s not often that I enjoy a P.M. event but this one definitely has me smiling.
He is the definition of bully.

So judging before all of the facts are in, eh? Already convicted are they? Last I checked, and unless I am mistaken, being able to speak with that kind of impunity via absolutle privilege only applies to comments made in the House. And since they weren’t uttered in the House but brazenly in a press conference, this letter is the result.

But they’re leftys, they have a RIGHT to be scummy and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. Don’cha’no, we’re leftys, ya’no, the folks that kill their own citizens, for the good of the state, don’cha’no.

Do you realize how hard it will be for Matthew Meier to pass the collection plate in church this Sunday after his fellow churchgoers have been made aware of what he does for a living?

True. No protection outside the House of Commons floor.

perpetually petulant Pat,
furrowed eyebrow hypocrite,
runs in the ‘peg,
but lives beside Liz.

I watched Pat Martin on CBC’s PNP and thought to myself “Does this clown realize his parliamentary privilege won’t protect him outside of the House?” Glad to see he’ll be forced to apologize. Now if only someone could convince Bob Rae to come back down to planet earth we can get back to real issues. 

Out of curiosity, any precedents of MPs being sued for defamation in Canada? None spring to mind off the top of my head? My interpretation of ‘absolute privilege’ is that this would extend beyond the floor of the House to include contexts where MPs are commenting on issues of public interest? Context seems important? I’m not entirely clear / convinced that the moment someone steps outside the HoC they become targets for defamation suits.

As well, reviewing transcript of Pat Martin’s press release, I’m not persuaded that calling a company a ‘rascal’ (particularly when they are implicated in a crime / have admitted their services were involved in criminal activity) constitutes defamation.

MPs enjoy an absolute privilege of freedom of speech when participating in debate and other proceedings in Parliament (House or committee).  They are not covered by parliamentary privilege when speaking to the media and can be sued like any other individual.

Here is what PoC’s website says re: parliamentary privilege:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=ABBC077A-6DD8-4FBE-A29A-3F73554E63AA&sbpid=8D1FB681-EBE9-49E7-A752-37CF494854CB&Language=E&Mode=1 

The section ‘Remarks Made Outside of Debate’ emphasizes that privilege is not guaranteed outside of House/Committees (as you point out), however, this in and of itself does not negate privilege; it seems to suggest that if the remarks “function” within the context of the business of parliament / parliamentary debate, that privilege applies. 
It’s a grey area to be sure, but privilege extends beyond the space where the words are physically spoken.

This strikes me as a moot point since CEO Matt Meier already admitted to the National Post that his company was used to conduct criminal activity.

By speaking to NP, he effectively defamed himself. Claiming defamation seems less plausible now than if he had simply declined comment in the first place. 

This seems analogous to admitting that you stole a chocolate bar than suing someone for defamation when they call you a sleazy chocolate thief because the allegations haven’t been proven in court.

Public interest exemption to deframation. Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html 

I’ve seen better researched collections letters. 

Public interest exemption to deframation. Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61.

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html 

I’ve seen better researched collections letters. 

Seems to me like Rack Nine cannot deny that their services were used to break the law. Seeing as that appears to be the case, I wonder what kind of liability they face? Seems like simply saying “we provided a service” is a weak argument. Does that mean that anything illegal can be done if you do it through a surrogate company? Freedom of speech seems to be at risk here. Will be interesting to see how the right handle this, being the defenders of free speech that they are.

I liken it to a car rental. If you rent a car and run over someone with it, the car rental company isn’t liable.
Another example is the phone company. If you utter a death threat on a phone line, Ma Bell isn’t liable.

Stephen, what you’ve said above is pure conjecture unless you’re aware of the specific user agreement between Racknine/2call.ca and their clients?Interestingly, if one attempts to find this information on 2call’s website, you will only find broken links and a policy document written entirely in lorem ipsum.

Not much coverage of this with the left leaning media.

Suing opposition politicians is common in places were the leader protects is strong position buy eliminating threats.  Behind it all is the kind of paranoia that attracts, enriches, empowers those Robert Hare writes about in “Snakes in Suits, when psychopaths go to work.  They have no empathy.  The can’t care if others suffer.  To get buy they lie they care.  That with daily practice becomes manipulation.   As warns us in his book Moral Minds this 1% of any population will forget their morality lessons at the nod from the authority figure they give deference to and do what comes naturally.  They have a purpose for the good of our species.  They can kill you and eat your flesh and then have a good nights sleep free of guilt that most of us would experience.  This robo-calling confirms my thinking, conservatives and psychopaths attract.  Just think of the picture with psychopath Col Russell Williams, a friend of mine’s career counselor, can you image, and Peter Mackay.  

It was okay for a “liberal” candidate to go around his riding – caught on camera taking the Tory phamplets out of mailboxes and putting the liberal one in – not much coverage on  that… and it was an okay dirty trick recently that was traced to a NDP House of Common Office – that too was dropped, but the liberal media -if they can make up or promote something negative against the Conservative Party – they try and keep it alive for weeks..  People are on to them thanks to blogs like this!  We will hear nothing about this for days!!!

It was okay for a “liberal” candidate to go around his riding – caught on camera taking the Tory phamplets out of mailboxes and putting the liberal one in – not much coverage on  that… and it was an okay dirty trick recently that was traced to a NDP House of Common Office – that too was dropped, but the liberal media -if they can make up or promote something negative against the Conservative Party – they try and keep it alive for weeks..  People are on to them thanks to blogs like this!  We will hear nothing about this for days!!!

These cases could likely be distinguished on the facts – media plays a vital role in public interest debates vs an individual, intent – the reporter attempted to verify the facts vs malicious intent, etc

Pat Martin can spend a lot of money litigating it to try and find out though. 

try liken it to sites hosting no infringing contents but directing to them?
So you are saying no legal actions can be taken to the middle man?
Wonder why then they sued The Pirate Bay Owners who were pretty much like a google for torrent files.
2 laws, 2 mesures, aren’t you all f****ng tired of these inequities?

try liken it to sites hosting no infringing contents but directing to them?
So you are saying no legal actions can be taken to the middle man?
Wonder why then they sued The Pirate Bay Owners who were pretty much like a google for torrent files.
2 laws, 2 mesures, aren’t you all f****ng tired of these inequities?

Aahh, so the NDP has ties to this company, they surely must be involved.  Who stands to gain from pushing this, hmmm  

As far as I can see is that the only evidence tying the Conservatives to this  is the fact that they used this company. Pat Martin is a Disgrace to the NDP and Canada as a whole. He make us look like a kangaroo nation and he needs to be kicked out of Parliament for his actions regarding this matter.

I am sickened at the fact that if this were to be done by any other party it would of been forgotten  about months ago,  yet since the CPC apparently did it it stays front page news.  What if it was the NDP or the liberals who did this and not the conservatives, since we all know that they both love playing dirty trick to brain wash young Canadians who don’t know any better. Sure the NDP and greens have a happy policy for them but their policy as well as the liberal policy is simply not cost effective at this moment where they like handing out free services to every tom dick and harry that doesn’t have white skin. Don’t mean to sound racist but the sad fact is if you are white you get less respect from those parties  in my experience, try getting a government  job if you are a white male, you would need all the luck in the world  just to get the job. 

I say pat Martin, the NDP, the liberals all need to be held in contempt of Parliament and held to standards and they should confess all of there deceitful actions as they only seem to care about the CPC actions. I say that the CPC is doing a fine job with regards to Defense and health care and on the economy. 

People in Ontario need to know that Dalton is screwing people who are on Disability on their Income tax  by not paying them right away or not paying them what they should be getting, I have had to already help a friend in need twice to help put food on their table until  they get paid this week , I will only do that for certain people That I can trust. I may be a CPC supporter but I have a heart of gold, maybe I should be the PM maybe things would be ten times better in Canada.

No, it would be analogous to being a store owner and admitting that you owned the store a chocolate bar was stolen from, then suing someone for defamation when they called you a sleazy chocolate thief because they are an attention seeking NDP wingnut……..

Pat Martin exhibits himself to be  a very angry person, he oozes hatred for all things Conservative. IMO he’s a disgrace to the institute of Parliament never mind the NDP, they’re OK with his outbursts and the media love him, he plays to the same agenda of gotcha hunting. Problem is the entire opposition and their media trumpets are running off half-cocked in search of the elusive big gotcha and are failing badly at  doing their job as opposition and honest reporting.

Martin was on CTV Question Period today(I never would watch it,but I just switched channels to see what they were talking )and he said enough that he should be sued over and over.He told Delmastro of the CPC to shut up,and even threatened him.Delmastro never said anything back to him,and Oliver the owl never said a word.There’s no words to describe Martin.There are words a person would want to use to descibe him,but they would be printable here.He’s a coward,as cowards will always use threatening  words.The way that he treated Delmastro today,it’s going to take some time for the bad feelings in parliament to go away,if ever.I believe that the NDPPQ are the problem ,especially Martin.The CPC has to investigate the NDPPQ to find out if the American unions are donating monies to their party.

Because of the NDPPQ it’s getting out of hand,and Rae is also a trouble maker.I know what a blowhard like martin needs,and a person like Peter McKay could easily give it to him.

I believe that an MP could be sued for defamation even in parliament,if he or she defamed a private company or person that didn’t have anything to do with politics or parliament.Privilege is only towards another MP,etc.

PM Harper doesn’t use the media like bigmouth braggart Martin.PM Harper uses the courts,and I hope he doesn’t back down like he did with Dion.Of course a person would have sympathy for Dion,but not martin.I would give no quarter to Martin.

We pay the costs.NdPPQ likes spending money,as long as it’s not theirs or the unions.

Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business says it’s too early to make any snap judgements.

“Any time somebody is interfering with an election, of course that’s serious,” he said on The West Block. “But I think (Senator Baker) has already convicted the other side of having done these things that they are alleged to have done. We don’t know how many people were involved, we don’t know how many phone calls were made, we don’t know how many people went to the wrong place and gave up voting.”

Moreover, the slight uptick in voter turnout between the 2008 and 2011 elections, Lee said, suggests that if anybody was trying to suppress the vote, they “completely failed at it.”

The professor said it would be more responsible to wait for the process to unfold and for the results of each investigation to be revealed.

Once the specifics of what happened, who did what to whom, and whether there was manifest interference in the election are known, then politicians and members of the public can start pointing fingers he said.

“I find it very farfetched that you can throw an election, which is certainly what Pat Martin of the NDP suggested, the actual election was transformed because of this,” Lee said. “There’s an awful lot of exaggeration and even hysteria going on when we don’t even have the facts in yet.”

Read it on Global News: Global News | ‘Robocalls’ could lead to byelections: Senator

 Yes, not long ago Robert Thibault was sued by Brian Mulroney.

 Yes, not long ago Robert Thibault was sued by Brian Mulroney.

With respect, it’s not a grey area.  You’re misreading the PoC website article.  I have over 26 years experience as a procedural adviser to the House (now retired).  Trust me:  the only privilege he has, if any, is called qualified privilege, which is not a parliamentary privilege.  It’s the kind of privilege a journalist has when commenting on a news event.  Parliamentary privilege has nothing to do with the space in which it’s spoken (you’re right about that); it concerns only the proceedings and debate.

 Disgusting comment.

Sorry, Gerald, an MP could defame you in a debate or in committee with impunity as long as what the MP said was part of the proceedings and not just a stray remark to another MP or the media.

On whether an MP can sue another MP for defamation …
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d61d2a85-529c-4236-9c09-8a72d7b86ab9
“Duceppe agrees to apologize for linking Dion to sponsorships
MAY 8, 2007
”Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe will publicly apologize to Stephane Dion as part of an out-of-court settlement over a $400,000 lawsuit after the Bloc published a pamphlet in 2005 linking the Liberal leader to the sponsorship scandal.”

My mind’s been wandering and wondering … about how some parties’ complaints are viewed differently, depending on the complainant and how some rules are stretched for some but not for others …

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2011/05/16/four-former-liberal-leadership-contenders-still-owe-%24576000-in-bank-loans/25985 
“Four former Liberal leadership contenders still owe $576,000 in bank loans
Several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached. …

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand initially gave the contenders an extension to their original deadline for repaying the loans, and a judge of Ontario Superior Court granted them a second extension. That deadline expires at the end of December [2011] for all of the former candidates except Mr. Dryden, whose deadline was extended to the end of June next year.

If the loans are not repaid by the end of this year, it will be up to a court to extend the deadlines again or not, said Elections Canada spokesperson Diane Benson. Ms. Benson said if the Dec. 31 deadline is not extended, and the loans are still outstanding, it may be referred to Elections Commissioner William Corbett, as is the case with outstanding claims owed by candidates or political parties.”

I have other links which I’ll post separately because the format here sometimes does not allow for paragraphs.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/14/ndp-avoids-election-act-charges-over-illegal-layton-memorial-donations/ 
“Ottawa Citizen>Blogs >News
NDP avoids Election Act charges over illegal Layton memorial donations
… the NDP admits it broke the rules governing donations to political parties by soliciting donations that would be transfered to another entity — specifically, to the yet-to-be established Broadbent Institute, a left-wing think tank. …”

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/29/us-union-contributed-to-ndp 
“U.S. union contributed to NDP
… Records show the American union [United Steelworkers of America] sent $5,000 last year, more than $39,000 in 2009, $8,500 in 2008, and in excess of $17,000 in 2007 to the New Democratic Party of Canada or the New Democrats of Canada.
While union contributions to provincial political parties are legal, they were banned along with corporate donations at the federal level in 2007.
The Canada Elections Act sets out penalties of a $1,000 fine, three months in prison, or both for a political party’s chief agent who fails to return an ineligible donation. …”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/02/cbc-violates-elections-canada-blackout-law/ 
“CBC may have violated the Elections Canada blackout law
… The law violated is Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, which bars anyone from broadcasting election results ahead before all polls close. Polls close at 7 p.m. PT, or 10 p.m. ET. There was much ado about the law earlier this week as Twitter and other social media users intended to protest the law.
Interestingly, CBC Newsworld resumed a few minutes after the technical difficulties message with a news story about Tweettheresults, a web project created in protest against the premature broadcast law. …”

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110415/guelph-university-vote-mob-legitimacy-dispute-110415/20110415?s_name=election2011 
“Guelph special ballot was valid: Elections Canada
Elections Canada says while a special ballot station set up at the University of Guelph earlier this month was not pre-authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, it was still a legitimate vote. …
The Conservative Party has said party members were denied the right to appoint a scrutineer to oversee the process and that campaign material was present at the polling station, which is prohibited.
The party added that it had since learned that the Guelph poll was not even authorized by Elections Canada. …”

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/525612–voters-receive-hoax-calls-about-changes-to-polling-stations 
“Voters receive hoax calls about changes to polling stations
… One variation of the call comes from a live operator who then, if asked for a phone number, offers the number for the campaign office of Conservative candidate Marty Burke. The other call, which seems to be more prevalent, is a message recorded in English and French. It also comes complete with what turns out to be an out-of-service 1-800 number. …
Burke’s campaign was the first to respond to the bogus calls.
“Today, many of our supporters have received misleading phone calls regarding voting in the General Election. This group is telling them that their polling location has changed. This is absolutely false, and has no place in the democratic process,” Burke’s director of communications Michael Sona wrote in an email. “We hope that the perpetrators of these unethical actions will cease these tactics immediately.”

The stories cited above have led me to conclude that complaints from Conservative quarters are quickly dismissed whereas complaints and allegations launched against the Conservatives get wall-to-wall coverage, with the “story with hairy legs” maxim usually being applied.

And finally, as I posted elsewhere (revised) … I recall the little game played by some activists in Copenhagen, during the Climate Change talks: 
http://bit.ly/zUAkMs

That was not the only time such a game took place:

http://bit.ly/umgR6f

http://bit.ly/pNRK7F


What if it’s not simply the opposition parties still holding a grudge because they didn’t manage to dislodge the Conservatives but other groups’ game plan? 

Pure speculation on my part. But before I start condemning my party, I want to see incontrovertible proof of their guilt. Telling me that a few people got crank calls and connecting those calls to the Conservative Party because they usually play hardball is not proof, in my books. 

P.S. Since the opposition counts many drama queens/kings among their ranks, I now take my leave and prepare to watch more drama queens/kings. It’s Academy Awards time!

NO True…MP’s are only protected in the House

NO True…MP’s are only protected in the House

CBC has reports of voter suppression complaints from the Conservative party in May during the election. Those calls were from an American area code and traced to a robocall co with Liberal ties. CBC hasn’t reported this info this time.
Time to send this info to Ezra at Sun TV News…its the only station that deals with both sides.

Good work Gabby from Quebec. Don’t forget the Liberal Joe Volpry story where himself and one of his helpers  were caught(the helper and Joe walking behind him) on video removing Green party  flyers from voters mailbox’s. Guess thats not voter suppression..what you don’t read won’t hurt you, I guess.

Analogous to MegaUpload not being liable for users uploading pirated TV shows / movies?

Analogous to Napster not being liable for users sharing copyrighted music?

Interesting. I’ll gladly stand corrected if that’s the case; ‘qualified privilege’ (or ‘fair comment’ or ‘communication of public interest’) may also be valid defences? In any event, it seems absurd that an MP could be sued for defamation when (1) speaking in the context of public interest and (2) when the plaintiff has already publicly acknowledged they were involved in criminal activity. My presumption is the courts would take into consideration public interest and an MPs authority to speak to issues of public interest.

 I concur with your analogy!

Interesting. Although the allegations in the BQ pamphlets strike me as being of a much more specific nature than what we have here: BQ specifically accuses Dion of orchestrating  and benefitting from the Sponsorship Scandal whereas the most contentious statement Pat Martin makes only refers to the “Racknine rascals”. My reading of Pat Martin’s press conference would suggest it is ambiguous as to whether he is referring to the company itself or to a rascally group of politicos who used Racknine. I would also argue that associating Racknine with the robocall scandal is fair commentary since the company’s phone servers were clearly used to commit criminal acts & its ‘absolved of any responsibility’ policies brought itself into disrepute. This case doesn’t strike me as having much merit and seems more akin to a SLAPP designed to silence critics.  

Wow. More hand-waving and pointing than the entire Santa Claus parade.

Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper:

I have no confidence in a statement read by a spokesperson. I think you need to state for the record that you had no knowledge of these events and that you do not condone the acts. And then, to show your integrity, make those members in ridings that the misleading robocalls were made step down and hold by-elections with new pc candidates. And if those clowns had any integrity they’d pay the costs of the by-elections.

The candidates may not have given the orders or been involved but they knew or ought to have known they happened.

This has undermined the confidence of Canadians in our system as being a modern democratic system…with integrity…

And I have to ask…did your party really need to stoop to such tactics ?

If someone commits a crime via the internet, is the ISP responsible for what its users do?

A little premature there ax.  How about waiting for an investigation.  The NDP also benefited greatly from a liberal loss.  Remember they beat the liberals to become the #2 party.  Many Strong Conservative supporter also received calls.  Seams like lots of random calls were made.

It’s really quite amazing the NDP, Pat Martin and company and Bob Rae, “acting” leader of the Liberals seem to have all the inside information and are blaming the Conservatives, otherwise they wouldn’t have a gotcha going.  Will the RCMP and EC be able to trace all the alleged illegal calls and come to a conclusion without leaving any doubt?

Forget about suing Pat martin, just vote this individual out. He is a disgrace , so vulgar.  I don’t care the party he belongs to or the issue, he is a person that I am not ok with him  representing Canada in any way, he is very offensive.

 How about the CPC  just say straight-up what calls they did/didn’t make? They just sacrificed a lamb let a junior staffer go, did Junior fess up to any of these calls, or what?

or will the CPC just clam up (again), let their friends  like Mr Taylor lay down smoke and counter-attacks, and hope we forget by next election?

The post above is written so badly it’s incoherent. 

 I think the media like Martin because they can always count on him to say something stupid/obscene.   Martin is too obtuse to know he’s being used. The old saw about “Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”   Martin has make himself irrelevant.

You clearly missed the Gomery Inquiry…

Well, if those are the rules you want to play by, fine.  Lets extend them to their logical use shall we?   ADSCAM – all the Liberals who were in caucus at the time will have to step down of course, and report to Jail -  and hold new elections.   Coalition of the 3 Stooges? – Sorry, to attempt to overthrow a government a mere 6 weeks after the public has duly elected them – that’s treason.  Dirty Tricks indeed,  Thankfully they too will only have to go to jail – for life,  as the War Measure’s Act was amended some years back – before that they would have been stood up against a wall and shot.  The PM has stated he has no knowledge of the events every day this week – get with the program.  There is nothing that has undermined Canadian confidence in our system as much as the “Coalition”.  And is it dirty tactics?  Remember Stockwell Day and the way the Libs attacked him?  You ain’t seen nothing yet, bub. Shall we continue playing silly bugger? Stay off the serious blogs and go back to your Tinfoil hat brigade to share your delusions with them.

Well, if those are the rules you want to play by, fine.  Lets extend them to their logical use shall we?   ADSCAM – all the Liberals who were in caucus at the time will have to step down of course, and report to Jail -  and hold new elections.   Coalition of the 3 Stooges? – Sorry, to attempt to overthrow a government a mere 6 weeks after the public has duly elected them – that’s treason.  Dirty Tricks indeed,  Thankfully they too will only have to go to jail – for life,  as the War Measure’s Act was amended some years back – before that they would have been stood up against a wall and shot.  The PM has stated he has no knowledge of the events every day this week – get with the program.  There is nothing that has undermined Canadian confidence in our system as much as the “Coalition”.  And is it dirty tactics?  Remember Stockwell Day and the way the Libs attacked him?  You ain’t seen nothing yet, bub. Shall we continue playing silly bugger? Stay off the serious blogs and go back to your Tinfoil hat brigade to share your delusions with them.

Suing people who break Libel or slander laws is done in a place ruled by law.  In those places where they are not ruled by law – they manipulate or create laws and imprison them becuase they control the judges – ever been to Russia?   If you don’t know the difference, don’t pretend to enter adult debate.  And with your last name, you’re embarrassing me.

Suing people who break Libel or slander laws is done in a place ruled by law.  In those places where they are not ruled by law – they manipulate or create laws and imprison them becuase they control the judges – ever been to Russia?   If you don’t know the difference, don’t pretend to enter adult debate.  And with your last name, you’re embarrassing me.

Your reply makes no sense. It’s merely an aggressive overeaction.

Have another beer. Obviously that’s the philosophy you follow.

Actually it makes perfect sense but you have to have the capacity to think laterally in order to see the reason in it.   I’ll type slower – If you want to make spurious and obtuse analogies about a political framework, you have to include all the participants of the political framework in order to support your contention.     Thus, the comparitive analogy.   If you had the slightest knowledge of the subject, you would have known that the PM has stood up in the House and categorically said neither he, nor the party, has any knowledge of the incident(s) in question – then you go and say

“I think you need to state for the record that you had no knowledge of these events and that you do not condone the acts.”

There are two obvious fallacy’s with your comment – first is the fact that you are demanding something that had already happened – the second fallacy is contained in the first two words of your quote.

Given that all I did was take your own ridiculous hypothesis and extend it to others within the same political spectrum, if my reaction was an “aggressive overreaction” then by your own definition, so was yours.  And frankly, I don’t drink beer, I drink rum.  But it appears you amy want to cut back on your own consumption.    Anyhow, here’s a bit of help to get you out of your rut.

fanatic

fa·nat·ic [fuh-nat-ik]
noun
1.
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.  Implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic.

As a non-partisan, it’s pretty amusing watching Cons and their supporters try to dance around this issue.  You can resort to the same hackneyed debates that plague Canadian politics, but it’s not going to help you. This government has got a REAL scandal racing through social discourse right now, and they’ve spent so much time attacking that they’ve forgotten how to defend.

Where are the genius Conservative strategists now? Where’s the PR? The imbeciles that support this party regardless of its behaviour do not need convincing, but the rest of Canada will.

Good luck with that.

 As a non-partisan, it’s pretty amusing watching Cons and their supporters try to dance around this issue.

If you were a non-partisan, and in possession of even a borderline intellect, you would know that at this point, there is no issue – there is an investigation taking place by EC and the RCMP – what materializes may become an issue, and we can rest assured the media and opposition will do their best to make it into one.   Pretty hard to porve you were not involved with something, no?   As in; “When did you stop beating your wife?”