Something simply *has* to change in politics

[BornRuff]

No, Nick is actually correct there. Just from the fact the woman was Premier of the province is an indication of some level of intelligence and understanding. When you are drawing from the public purse your first question re any expense incurred must be "would I make the expenditure if it was coming out of my pocket"? Is spending $45 grand to attend a funeral, reasonable? Clearly it's not. I know, she could try to fly the argument that she is going as a representative! Tough, it still doesn't fly.

When did I ever argue that it was necessarily right for her to spend that much on that trip? I said it wasn't fraud.

You honestly think that we should be able to toss politicians in jail and bankrupt them over people's impression of how well they are doing their job?

Do you work as an apologist for politicians as a real job or just on here? Sending $45k on a trip that another politician made for $1k is certainly something besides honest and being a little liberal in your spending. It is misappropriation of public funds on a grand scale and deserves a grand response from the people to set an example to all remaining and future politicians. Personally I would like to see her lose everything she owns to be sold and the funds put into the public purse followed by a long public flogging and 15 years of forced labour on projects to benefit the people but there are too many bleeding hearts and apologists like you to get that done so let's at least be frank and call her a crook and take away her pension/benefits etc.

Just subbing in a different word that you don't understand doesn't help. The trip in no way constituted misappropriation of funds. It was all done within the rules set out for travel expenses and reporting.

Why do people insist on making stuff up when there are more than enough real issues to talk about?

 

[PoliticalNick]

You don't want to get too carried away, Nick, we have to reserve a proper level of punishment for the likes of Wallin and Duffy.

Those f*ckers just deserve a .38 slug to the head and a cardboard coffin. End of problem.

 

[JLM]

When did I ever argue that it was necessarily right for her to spend that much on that trip? I said it wasn't fraud.

That doesn't preclude greed, waste, theft!

Those f*ckers just deserve a .38 slug to the head and a cardboard coffin. End of problem.

I agree whole heartedly Nick, but you just can't be doing that stuff in Canada. We ain't Siberia!

Those f*ckers just deserve a .38 slug to the head and a cardboard coffin. End of problem.

Well, with Duffy, they could probably render him down for lard- probably enough B.T.U.s there to heat the parliament buildings in Ottawa for a month.

 

[BornRuff]

That doesn't preclude greed, waste, theft!

Well, yeah. Obviously saying that it isn't fraud doesn't preclude other things.

My point is against all the claims that a crime was committed, when there is no evidence of that at all. All that has been shown are actions that people believe are wasteful.

Waste is a criticism of how someone is doing their job. Fraud and theft are crimes. Those a very different things.

 

[PoliticalNick]

When did I ever argue that it was necessarily right for her to spend that much on that trip? I said it wasn't fraud.

You honestly think that we should be able to toss politicians in jail and bankrupt them over people's impression of how well they are doing their job?



Just subbing in a different word that you don't understand doesn't help. The trip in no way constituted misappropriation of funds. It was all done within the rules set out for travel expenses and reporting.

Why do people insist on making stuff up when there are more than enough real issues to talk about?

I'm done with you. You are obviously part of the problem. What you overlook in your zealous support of theft from the public is that just because some power-hungry, greedy f*ckers get together someplace, call themselves a govt, claim authority over us, and then put in writing a rule that allows them to spend the money they extort from us without any accountability and call it a law does not mean it is right or even actually lawful.

Her is the explaination in pictures for those just as mentally challenged as you...

 

[BornRuff]

Right now the only 'clear cut law' surrounding politicians is the one where they have given themselves immunity from prosecution for almost everything short of murder.

Lol. How on earth are politicians above the law in any way? What laws are they granted immunity from?

It would seem you support this which leads me to believe you are either stealing from the taxpayers along with the politicians or are just a poor bastard with an IQ slightly lower than a boston fern. If you wish to ignore the whole 'conservative' platform of her govt so as to convince yourself she isn't a fraud I can't stop you but I sure as hell don't have to buy the kool-aid you're drinking. You are the biggest problem we have with govts today in the fact you will let this sh*t go by without anything but a stern warning for the 8 millionth time. I can't even lump you in with the 80% of the population who create these issues with their apathetic attitudes towards govt and its' leaders. No, you are in a very special class where you actually seem to support frivolous use of public funds for personal reasons.

Now I will concede that by definition she may not have committed fraud, except in presenting herself as conservative and then engaging in liberal spending (mostly on herself and her family), so call it theft or misappropriation of public funds or whatever the f*ck you want to call it but it is still, and always will be wrong and deserves more punishment than resigning with all benefits and pensions in tact and keeping all the ill-gotten gains.

Please show me one post where I supported her spending? I have just pointed out repeatedly that your numerous claims that she committed a crime are false.

There is a big difference between committing a crime and just doing a bad job. When you are bad at your job, you get fired. When you break the law, then you have more coming to you.

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all the assistance to the minister or other elected official are not there
to protect the interests of the people they are there to protect the Minister.
Can you imagine being an assistant to Rob Ford? You are at home knowing
he's out there on the subway likely drinking and roaming about with god knows who.
In this case the severance is going to be high and everyone moves on.
Redford did not have political ability to keep the wolves at bay and that is why she
was eaten alive

 

[BornRuff]

I'm done with you. You are obviously part of the problem. What you overlook in your zealous support of theft from the public is that just because some power-hungry, greedy f*ckers get together someplace, call themselves a govt, claim authority over us, and then put in writing a rule that allows them to spend the money they extort from us without any accountability and call it a law does not mean it is right or even actually lawful.

Lol. You do understand how our government is chosen, right?

 

[JLM]

First of all the assistance to the minister or other elected official are not there
to protect the interests of the people they are there to protect the Minister.
Can you imagine being an assistant to Rob Ford? You are at home knowing
he's out there on the subway likely drinking and roaming about with god knows who.
In this case the severance is going to be high and everyone moves on.
Redford did not have political ability to keep the wolves at bay and that is why she
was eaten alive

I think she was "eaten alive" mainly for her "Marie Antoinette attitude", perhaps what she did is not a "crime", but with her supposed level of recognition what she did should be regarded as criminal. She knew she was fleecing the electorate. You have to give the woman some credit for intelligence or accept that the electorate are a bunch of idiots! You can't suck and blow at the same time!

 

[PoliticalNick]

Lol. How on earth are politicians above the law in any way? What laws are they granted immunity from?




Please show me one post where I supported her spending? I have just pointed out repeatedly that your numerous claims that she committed a crime are false.

There is a big difference between committing a crime and just doing a bad job. When you are bad at your job, you get fired. When you break the law, then you have more coming to you.

There is a big difference between breaking the law as it should be and breaking the law you wrote for your own benefit. Just like there is a big difference between claiming lawful authority to extort money from the population and actually having that authority. You obviously drink their kool-aid by the gallon, I don't drink it at all.
If I were to write it down on paper as theft and have a bunch of my friends vote that it is a law would you call it theft then? I only ask because that is all these people who would control us do and you are gullible enough to go along.

 

[BornRuff]

I think she was "eaten alive" mainly for her "Marie Antoinette attitude", perhaps what she did is not a "crime", but with her supposed level of recognition what she did should be regarded as criminal. She knew she was fleecing the electorate. You have to give the woman some credit for intelligence or accept that the electorate are a bunch of idiots! You can't suck and blow at the same time!

What does that even mean? How can something that is not a crime turn into a crime based on your level of "recognition"? If she had 100% understanding of the situation, she would understand that it isn't a crime.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Lol. You do understand how our government is chosen, right?

Yep. Stupid f*cks like you buy into their illusion, drink the kool-aid, and go mark a piece of paper effectively making a choice between corporate puppet #1 and corporate puppet #2 thereby giving them the authority they claim. I refuse to give them that authority but you can if you need them to think for you which you probably do seeing how you believe their big lie.

What does that even mean? How can something that is not a crime turn into a crime based on your level of "recognition"? If she had 100% understanding of the situation, she would understand that it isn't a crime.

The only difference between it being a crime and not is what her and ber friends and cohorts write on a piece of paper. If that is the requirement I can write it down for ya.

 

[BornRuff]

There is a big difference between breaking the law as it should be and breaking the law you wrote for your own benefit. Just like there is a big difference between claiming lawful authority to extort money from the population and actually having that authority. You obviously drink their kool-aid by the gallon, I don't drink it at all.
If I were to write it down on paper as theft and have a bunch of my friends vote that it is a law would you call it theft then? I only ask because that is all these people who would control us do and you are gullible enough to go along.

Lol, so you can't think of any way that they are actually immune from the law?

As for the bolded part, No. Our constitution protects all of us, including our leaders, from "ex post facto" criminal laws. That means that you can't pass a law to retroactively make something illegal. If we set laws and people break them going forward, that is a different issue.

If we can't create laws through the democratic process, what way is there to create any sort of law that would be legitimate in your books?

It sounds like you would be very supportive of passing laws to limit spending by politicians, correct? How would you go about doing that?

 

[Zipperfish]

Some yahoos in BC went to Disneyland on the tax payers bill. Spent outrageous money on accommodations, food, and assorted high on the hog excesses. I think a 45k computer was part of it. That sort of stuff should never happen. They should get approval from auditors before embarking on squander. In the private sector you don't spend to the nines, file your expenses and hope no one looks. You would be fired out the door in a flash.

Meh. Baloney. I got buddies that wine and dine clients in Vegas.

I'm done with you. ...

Ha--well done Ruff. You out-trolled the troll!

 

[JLM]

Meh. Baloney. I got buddies that wine and dine clients in Vegas.

Quite often it's the clients who wind up footing the bill, in due course. -

 

[PoliticalNick]

Lol, so you can't think of any way that they are actually immune from the law?

As for the bolded part, No. Our constitution protects all of us, including our leaders, from "ex post facto" criminal laws. That means that you can't pass a law to retroactively make something illegal. If we set laws and people break them going forward, that is a different issue.

If we can't create laws through the democratic process, what way is there to create any sort of law that would be legitimate in your books?

It sounds like you would be very supportive of passing laws to limit spending by politicians, correct? How would you go about doing that?

Redford is a prime example of why ex-post-facto laws should be allowed on politicians and bureaucrats. You are a fine example of why ex-post-facto abortion is a good idea!

 

[BornRuff]

Redford is a prime example of why ex-post-facto laws should be allowed on politicians and bureaucrats. You are a fine example of why ex-post-facto abortion is a good idea!

So let me get this straight. You are the one going on about how the government doesn't have the right to violate you regardless of how many people vote for those violations. The constitution is the document that provides you with those protections. Yet now you want to toss the constitution out the window because you feel like violating someone else?

Can you please try to answer the questions I posed to you?

"If we can't create laws through the democratic process, what way is there to create any sort of law that would be legitimate in your books?

It sounds like you would be very supportive of passing laws to limit spending by politicians, correct? How would you go about doing that?"

 

[PoliticalNick]

So let me get this straight. You are the one going on about how the government doesn't have the right to violate you regardless of how many people vote for those violations. The constitution is the document that provides you with those protections. Yet now you want to toss the constitution out the window because you feel like violating someone else?

In the post 9/11 world the constitution (ours and many others) is about as useful as tits on a nun! It never really was worth anything anyway due to the 'notwithstanding' clause.

Can you please try to answer the questions I posed to you?

Can you please stop being an apologist for people who deserve a good flogging before being hung, drawn & quartered while sitting in boiling oil.

"If we can't create laws through the democratic process, what way is there to create any sort of law that would be legitimate in your books?

I might be agreeable to some laws through a real democratic process instead of the illusionary scam the bankers and corporations have in place today but then again, since democracy by definition could be 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner I am not really that inclined. Democracy is really mob rule whereby 51% of the people can legally trample the rights of the other 49%. Please note I said legally, not lawfully!

It sounds like you would be very supportive of passing laws to limit spending by politicians, correct? How would you go about doing that?"

I would be very supportive of shooting the motherf*ckers publicly and seizing all their assets for dipping into the public purse for anything other than essential services. For now though lets just make them pay from their own pocket and let a board of regular citizens decide whether it is a justifiable expense of a reasonable amount. Deny a few of these multi-thousand dollar expenses and the rest will slow down real quick. A good start would be a constitution that prevents legislators form making laws that pertain to themselves.


Best way to deal with all this is do away with democracy and govt and make me the omnipotent dictator of all the world so I can fix all this **** and make my peons happy! ;-)

 

[BornRuff]

In the post 9/11 world the constitution (ours and many others) is about as useful as tits on a nun! It never really was worth anything anyway due to the 'notwithstanding' clause.

Can you please stop being an apologist for people who deserve a good flogging before being hung, drawn & quartered while sitting in boiling oil.

I might be agreeable to some laws through a real democratic process instead of the illusionary scam the bankers and corporations have in place today but then again, since democracy by definition could be 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner I am not really that inclined. Democracy is really mob rule whereby 51% of the people can legally trample the rights of the other 49%. Please note I said legally, not lawfully!

I would be very supportive of shooting the motherf*ckers publicly and seizing all their assets for dipping into the public purse for anything other than essential services. For now though lets just make them pay from their own pocket and let a board of regular citizens decide whether it is a justifiable expense of a reasonable amount. Deny a few of these multi-thousand dollar expenses and the rest will slow down real quick. A good start would be a constitution that prevents legislators form making laws that pertain to themselves.


Best way to deal with all this is do away with democracy and govt and make me the omnipotent dictator of all the world so I can fix all this **** and make my peons happy! ;-)

You make it seem like you are joking with this last comment, but it is really the only logical conclusion of you previous comments in that post.

Lets play a thought game. What system would you want if you were not the omnipotent dictator? Would you want to live in a world where I could randomly stop by one day and toss you in a pot of boiling oil simply because you displeased me in an unspecified way?

Is it really better to be at the whim of a dictator than at the will of a government that you have a say in creating?

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

At the very least Redford was shown the door. This had nothing to do with soul searching, paying attention to family, or any other cliche exit stage left mantra.

She caved in the wake of a major backlash; even within her own party.

As for Ontario politics or even Ottawa politics, the populus doesn't get it at all.

Maybe that's why many ho-hum voters in Ontario hate Alberta so much, they don't screw around and it is a step above the complacency you find elsewhere.