If she stole them? Yes.So do I have a right to know what colour of undies she wears?
So you say. Reality dictates otherwise.This is a personal matter until formal criminal charges are laid.
If she stole them? Yes.So do I have a right to know what colour of undies she wears?
So you say. Reality dictates otherwise.This is a personal matter until formal criminal charges are laid.
I don't watch TV.I actually have to agree with you here.
How about those annoying WestJet adds?
You're missing some funny sh!t!!!I don't watch TV.
:roll:Even a scum like Brian Mulroney fired a cabinet minister every year he was in office but there was never any doubt why that minister was fired. Guergis was not only thrown our of cabinet, she was also thrown out of caucus and Harper refuses to say a word to anyone. If you are going to ruin somebody's career, I think you have to give the reasons. It sounds like there is a bit of poop smeared around here starting with that intrepid, debt-ridden private investigator and Harper doesn't want to get any on himself
Even a scum like Brian Mulroney fired a cabinet minister every year he was in office but there was never any doubt why that minister was fired. Guergis was not only thrown our of cabinet, she was also thrown out of caucus and Harper refuses to say a word to anyone. If you are going to ruin somebody's career, I think you have to give the reasons. It sounds like there is a bit of poop smeared around here starting with that intrepid, debt-ridden private investigator and Harper doesn't want to get any on himself
You're making assumptions again Machjo.My point precisely. If you're going to inform us that there are criminal accusations against Guregis, then at the very least, if not we, Guergis herself has every right to know the accusations against her in detail. If that cannot be ascertained, then Harper should have removed her from Cabinet quietly and kept his mouth shut about the reasons. Either give us the full story or none of it. Either could be acceptable. And I can certainly appreciate that some secrecy might be needed. But if that's the case, then make the secrecy complete and not ad hock.
I don't know - is she really feeling the need to defend herself or is she trying to deflect blame. I believe they said at the end of the interview (or somewhere in it) that the police are undecided as to whether or not they will lay charges. Knowing this, it's easy for her to go public and make Harper look like the bad guy because she knows her job is gone. Even, if under pressure, she is re-instated, it will never go well for her. It's a little like a person who is relieved of charges but it never actually states they are innocent - it simply states the charges are un-proven and the guilty party walks. That could be the case here. We may never know the truth in this particular case.
If she stole them? Yes.
She's holding a public office Machjo, you can't just bounce her out without an explanation. That's fodder for the hacks...damned again.Sure, if the police think it could help them solve the case. Otherwise, no.
So long as it doesn't involve your platform or your office, I agree.I don't believe being a public figure automatically means you have no right to privacy.
You keep running with the "She doesn't know" angle.What assumptions?
And what is the official drug of the LPoC or NDP?Crack is the official drug of the Conservative party.
Maybe we won't be fooled again?Whenever a woman cries leave it to men to roll there and say it's a ploy or trick.:roll: