Layton's lying exposed in CBC "your turn"!!

[Harper_is_Bush]

Check out this link:
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_ndp.html

There's a LOT of avoidence by the man for most questions, but given that the centerpiece of his campaign is to call Liberals "corrupt" this part is MOST interesting:

Sean Ledwich (Winnipeg): Mr. Layton, my name is Sean Ledwich, and here's my question. The Gomery Commission states that Paul Martin should be "exonerated from any wrongdoing for carelessness or misconduct," and no Liberal candidate is implicated in the sponsorship scandal. In regards to the NDP allegation of an income trust leak, information detailed on the CBC website strongly supports that market speculation is the culprit rather than any leak. Given these facts, how do you justify the constant repetition of the word "corruption" in reference to your Liberal opponents, and do you feel that false accusations like that harm our democratic process?

Jack Layton: Oh, I think what's – I think our democratic process has been harmed, and I think it's by the loss of confidence that has resulted from the whole scandal itself, people watching what Justice Gomery called a kind of an organized process of funnelling money to try and buy Quebecers' support for Canada. That was an insult to Quebecers, and we've seen the reaction. It's driven up the support for those who might not even want to stay in Canada. That's one tragic outcome. And the second is that people now think that, oh, I guess that's what politics is all about, getting money to flow through to your friends, and I know a lot of people who are turning their back on politics completely. And I think it's tragic.

Peter Mansbridge: But his question is once again, it's very direct. He says that you and the other political opponents of the Liberals are suggesting that Paul Martin and his government are corrupt. Now, is there any evidence that they are corrupt, that this government that's currently seeking re-election is corrupt?

Jack Layton: Well, I think what you've seen is scandalous behaviour, Peter, and I think everybody's reacted to that. The income trust was mentioned. Now, I would have thought that the finance minister would have called in the RCMP given what happened to the – a lot of people made millions and a lot of people lost millions from their savings at that moment. Something went wrong clearly, but I would have thought the minister of finance would have asked them in or the prime minister asked in the RCMP–

Peter Mansbridge: You can debate how that works–

Jack Layton: Peter, I've got to finish this one thought. The RCMP is doing the investigation. They don't act on the basis of politics. They really don't, and I think that Mr. Martin suggesting that is not right.

Peter Mansbridge: But that's not what he's saying. Everybody understands an investigation. It will conclude one way or another, but at the moment, he feels that you and the other political opponents of the Liberals are calling them corrupt, in other words, the Martin Liberals, and there's no evidence for it. Either there is evidence or there isn't evidence that they're corrupt. Scandalous is one way of looking at it. Corruption is quite different. Are they corrupt? Is there any evidence they've been corrupt?

Jack Layton: Well, all I know is that there are various charges and processes under way flowing from Justice Gomery. Canadians will have to draw their own conclusion about that. It certainly, I think, is something that concerns a lot of Canadians and they should be rightly concerned.

Peter Mansbridge: All right, question here in the room.

Try as he might, Peter could not get the little weasel to answer the question! His entire campaign has been one big lie, and when it's exposed he can only dance and prance around the facts.

[daleo]

1. That is pretty damning

I have always thought the corruption scandal thing was mostly manufactured myself. Layton should have given a more direct answer. His response makes me think he is of the same opinion.

[Swede]

2. Layton's lust for power will push the NDP into limbo for years.

Why Jack? You had the Liberals where you wanted them.

[Minstrel Boy]

3. Ah yes. The power-mad NDP.

Though the Liberals are corrupt and Layton mishandled Mansbridge's hounding - the grand ol' Liberal shill gave Martin a free pass - I won't defend the NDP strategists adoption of the theme, which doesn't play to our strengths. In fact, before the Toronto rally last weekend and Layton's pre-empting the Liberal play for strategic votes, I was very disappointed in the campaign. Now, not so. Though the TV ads are still quite weak, other than the "former Liberals" spot.

"...push the NDP into limbo for years"

Think federal New Democrats don't know limbo? We do limbo well. It's the Grits I feel for. Remove them from power and they run around like chickens with their expense accounts cut off. They don't know who they are anymore. It's tragic.

Kinda puts me in mind of Kipling's The Pict Song:

We shall be slaves just the same?
Yes, we have always been slaves.
But you -- you will die of the shame,
And then we shall dance on your graves!

[iverglas]

4. please forgive my denseness

but maybe you could somehow extract, or highlight, whatever bit of that you are characterizing as "lying".

Much appreciated.

Here's the bit I like, and that I was referring to in the other thread about this same subject that you started and now seem to have abandoned:

Given these facts, how do you justify the constant repetition of the word "corruption" in reference to your Liberal opponents, and do you feel that false accusations like that harm our democratic process?

In my world, people who accuse other people of making false accusations generally identify what they are, and offer some substantiation for their own accusation. Otherwise, people listening may just get the impression that something is true when nobody has shown it to be true at all.

That would be why I've asked you to do that. Too bad Jack didn't do the same.

Just what are these "false accusations" that Layton is supposed to have made? I'm not seeing anything in the question that either identifies the "false accusations" alleged or offers any substantiation of the characterization "false".

As I did say, my suggestion is that anyone who doesn't want to feel like the target of characterizations of Liberals / the Liberal Party as corrupt is entirely free to join another party.

The Liberal Party was not miraculously reincarnated as something else altogether when St. Paul assumed the throne.

I wonder, where were all the voices decrying the beating inflicted on Kim Campbell when she took the brunt of the country's distaste for Brian Mulroney? I mean, obviously his doings should have been totally disregarded by the voters, and the press ... and oh yeah, by the Liberals. A new day had dawned, just as it did for the Liberals this time around.

And we have to thank Peter for contributing to the little charade:

he feels that you and the other political opponents of the Liberals are calling them corrupt, in other words, the Martin Liberals, and there's no evidence for it.

"In other words?" Whose words, Peter? And if "he feels" that to have been done, how is that the problem of anyone who hasn't been shown to have done it, and why is it up to such a person to address his feelings?

Does anyone really think that "the Liberals", or even "the Martin Liberals", even if anyone had been saying that, means only Paul Martin and his band of seat-warmers in the House? How 'bout those Liberal Party stalwarts of Martin's in BC, huh? A fine and upstanding bunch they are, cough. And they were being fine and upstanding on Martin's watch ... in fact, in aid of Martin's effort to grasp the brass ring of party leadership itself.

Poor Jack probably did wake up in the morning, or read this transcript, and smack his head and think how could I have fallen for such a cheap trick? It happens to the best of us.

The fact is that there isn't no answer to the real question, there just aren't ever answers to cheap, dirty, loaded questions, no matter how elegantly worded they are and how pure and innocent their askers sound.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. The questioner clearly explained the false accusation...

I don't think you're "dense", so no need to ask for forgiveness.

I think you're being purposely contrary.

Quite obviously the accusation of "corruption" is a lie, since there is no evidence of corruption against Liberal party candidates.

The "false accusation" is that of corruption. It is now shown to be a lie, because he could not provide an answer to the simple question of "how do you justify that?"

Pretty simple stuff.

[iverglas]

6. but apparently you can't

Is it the educational system? Maybe the churches? Whose failure can explain such unreasoned and incivil discourse?

Quite obviously the accusation of "corruption" is a lie, since there is no evidence of corruption against Liberal party candidates.

Quite obviously no one has established that anyone made any accusations of corruption AGAINST LIBERAL PARTY CANDIDATES.

Perhaps you'd like to notice that not even the questioner on whose words you state you are relying made any allegation that accusations of corruption had been made AGAINST LIBERAL PARTY CANDIDATES, let alone offered anything to substantiate such an allegation, let alone offered anything to substantiate the allegation that it was FALSE.

If you are willing to say that "the accusation of 'corruption' is a lie", you really ought to be able to tell us WHO MADE that accusation, and WHAT IT WAS, not to even mention WHAT SHOWS IT TO BE A LIE.

The "false accusation" is that of corruption. It is now shown to be a lie, because he could not provide an answer to the simple question of "how do you justify that?"

Now maybe you could tell us how he should have answered if the questioner had asked him whether he had stopped beating his dog. That one's a real simple question. Want to take a shot at it? Stopped beating your dog yet?

How was he supposed to "justify" doing something that HE HAD NOT DONE, and that the questioner had not even attempted to SHOW THAT HE HAD DONE?

Pretty simple stuff.

It certainly is. That's the beauty of demagoguery. It's very simple indeed to smear someone by subtly planting ideas in people's heads without ever saying anything that can be proved to be false.

The questioner never said that Jack Layton had made false accusations against anyone. And yet you seem to think that he did. And you seem to think that the thing that the questioner never said was proved by something that Layton didn't say. One might hope that most of the electorate isn't quite so simple as to fall for the questioner's nasty right-wing tactic, but one might hope in vain.

Here's the question:

Given these facts, how do you justify the constant repetition of the word "corruption" in reference to your Liberal opponents, and do you feel that false accusations like that harm our democratic process?

Here are the facts stated by the questioner:

The Gomery Commission states that Paul Martin should be "exonerated from any wrongdoing for carelessness or misconduct," and no Liberal candidate is implicated in the sponsorship scandal.

In regards to the NDP allegation of an income trust leak, information detailed on the CBC website strongly supports that market speculation is the culprit rather than any leak.

Here is the "fact" that the questioner needed to state and prove before he was in the position that a rational, decent person would need to be in to allege that Layton had made "false accusations" by asking him ANYTHING about any "false accusation":

That Layton had accused someone of corruption who had been shown not to be involved in corruption, or, at the least, against whom there was no evidence of corruption.

Now if you can show where the questioner established that "fact", or even where I can find any other evidence of that "fact", you'll have done what I asked in the first place.

The Liberal Party did not cease to exist when Chrétien resigned as its leader, and the Liberal Party was not reborn as something brand new when Martin became its leader. The Liberal Party is an entity that has been demonstrably corrupt in its present incarnation.

By the way, and although not relevant here because there is no evidence of any accusation of corruption having been made against Martin that calls for any evidence anyway: what exactly would you call Martin's shenanigans with Canadian tax law while he was Minister of Finance -- you do know about that off-shore tax haven stuff, I assume; how he arranged our tax law to maximize his own profits -- if not corruption? That was the poster child for corruption, that one: a member of the executive branch of a government making policy/law for his personal benefit and against the interests of the country he has been elected to govern. Don't try to tell me that any accusation of corruption against Martin -- IF ANY HAD BEEN MADE -- would have been false.

Just in case you missed all that:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021211ce.html

Department of Finance—Tax arrangements for foreign affiliates have eroded Canadian tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 10 years.

...
In 1992, we expressed concern that tax arrangements for foreign affiliates resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in reduced tax revenues. Following our Report, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts held hearings and made recommendations to the Department of Finance Canada in 1993. While legislative changes have been made, we are still concerned. The Minister of Finance's Technical Committee on Business Taxation also examined the issues and reported on them in 1997.

The report of the Technical Committee noted that Canada's rules have allowed foreign-owned multinationals to shift debt into Canada and have encouraged tax planning mechanisms that erode Canadian tax revenues. We observed transactions where foreign-owned Canadian corporations incurred over $3 billion of debt to finance investments in third countries. The interest on that debt is deducted from Canadian income before taxes. It results in a loss of revenue for both federal and provincial governments.

We also observed a transaction, for example, where a foreign affiliate of a foreign-owned Canadian corporation was used to move $500 million in capital gains from Canada to Barbados tax-free. In 2000, Canadian corporations received $1.5 billion of virtually tax-free dividend income from their affiliates in Barbados (compared with $400 million in 1990). We noted that Barbados and Malta changed their tax rules to bypass our law—to accommodate foreign affiliate investments. Tax arrangements for foreign affiliates continue to erode Canadian tax revenues.

- Auditor General of Canada, 2002

Martin was responsible for the legislation that allowed all that. Martin used that legislation to avoid Canadian income taxes.

Martin should probably be grateful that the whole thing is too complex to even mention in an election campaign, because if anyone tried to, a question from the audience about "false accusations" would be all the voters needed to breathe a sigh of relief that now they didn't have to try to figure it all out. Yup, just another false accusation, that's it. Nothing to see here.

Meanwhile, I'm still seeing nothing to support an allegation that Layton has made any false accusations at all, so I'll be calling that one a false accusation.


(edited to fix html)

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. I read this far....

"Quite obviously no one has established that anyone made any accusations of corruption AGAINST LIBERAL PARTY CANDIDATES."

and that was it.

If you're trying to tell me that Layton hasn't been calling his Liberal opponents in this election corrupt I'd have to guess you're not watching TV or reading the newspaper or surfing the net other than this forum.

The little weasel even started substituting the word "corruption" for "Liberal".

In the debate (and many times elsewhere) he told people "You don't have to choose corruption or the Conservatives, there's a third choice!"

So, tell me again what no one has established? I appreciate a good chuckle.

[iverglas]

11. sez you

If you're trying to tell me that Layton hasn't been calling his Liberal opponents in this election corrupt I'd have to guess you're not watching TV or reading the newspaper or surfing the net other than this forum.

And you call someone else a weasel? The gall exceeds all bounds.

What, exactly, I want to know, and I want you to tell me since you're the one who has chosen to say it, does THIS MEAN:

his Liberal opponents

?

Anything you bloody well want somebody to think it means? As long as nobody actually asks -- so that you can keep on saying it without having to take responsibility for saying anything at all?

Layton has undoubtedly (can't quote chapter and verse) accused THE LIBERAL PARTY and LIBERALS of corruption.

THE LIBERAL PARTY and LIBERALS are indeed "his Liberal opponents".

So now are YOU going to try to tell ME that THE LIBERAL PARTY and LIBERALS have **NOT** been guilty of corruption?

G'head. Do it. I dare you.

But if you are going to tell me that "his Liberal opponents" means PAUL MARTIN or any other particular individual you might want somebody to think it means, then I'm going to ask you why you (and the plant in the CBC audience, and anybody else who might be saying or wanting to say it) doesn't just SAY "PAUL MARTIN". Or name the candidate Layton himself is running against, or name anyone else your little hearts might desire whom YOU MEAN to refer to when YOU say "his Liberal opponents".

You may not realize that you're talking to someone who has long, loooong experience dealing with demagoguery. I know exactly what it is and how it's practised and by whom it's practised, and I have no difficulty recognizing it when I see it. I strongly advise anyone in my vicinity not to try pulling it when I'm around if they don't want to be demonstrated (after being given the proper opportunity to clear up any innocent misunderstanding, as was given here) to be either too duplicitous or too dim to be spared another moment's thought.

I appreciate a good chuckle.

I don't find you or anyone else pulling this crap the least bit entertaining, myself. I find people who knowingly and intentionally pull such crap to be entirely other than entertaining.

But if you want to walk around snickering and thinking you've accomplished something, well be my guest. I'm not the one looking ... well, the way you look, so I hardly care.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. It's quite weasely behaviour to falsely accuse of corruption

see how it works?

[iverglas]

16. c'mon, you can do it

Well, I'm giving you the benefit of the assumption that you can do it, anyhow.

It's quite weasely behaviour to falsely accuse of corruption

Yeah? Would it be weasely behaviour to falsely accuse BABY DOC DUVALIER of corruption?

Who knows, eh? How could anyone possibly FALSELY accuse Baby Doc Duvalier of corruption? Baby Doc Duvalier was as corrupt as the day is long.

See how it works?

It would be weasely behaviour to falsely accuse ME of corruption, you'd be damned right there.

Would it be weasely behaviour to falsely accuse THE LIBERAL PARTY of Canada of corruption?

Can't answer that one. Can't FALSELY accuse the Liberal Party of corruption, because THE LIBERAL PARTY is GUILTY OF CORRUPTION.

Can't FALSELY accuse LIBERALS of corruption, because LIBERALS are GUILTY OF CORRUPTION.

So WHOM or WHAT did you have in mind?

It's weasely behaviour to falsely accuse _____WHOM/WHAT_____ of corruption?

It's a really simple question.

IT'S A REALLY SIMPLE QUESTION.

Why won't you answer it?

Do you really want me to believe it's because you aren't CAPABLE of answering it? If so, you might be getting your wish.

Lack of ability to figure things out is not a sin. Making false accusations against other people because one is not able to figure things out is.


html fixed

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. All talk, no evidence.

NDP has an election playbook this time around. More like an info-mercial script.

Sorry, I didn't mean to try and take away the #1 piece of bullshit from the NDP info-mercial script.

You go ahead and keep saying it. Uppercase.


Here's the prediction:

The bullshit branding info-mercial devised by Harper and Layton has worked. We will have a minority Conservative government and the NDP will pick up a few more seats this time. Liberals or Bloc will be official opposition.

Over the course of the minority parliament, the income trust and the sponsorship issues will come to a close. The former will be declared an empty accusation, and the latter will declare those already declared guilty by Gomery to be guilty legally.
After 18 months of Conservatives trying to run the house Canadians will be turned off of Harper like Americans are turned off of Bush right now.
Next election they'll look at the NDP and think "hmmmmmm....you're the SOB's who caused that last election and who hardly ever attacked the conservatives and who made that garbage allegation about income trusts"
Liberals will benifit from the loss of appetite for NDP dirty dealings evidenced during this election and will form the subsequent government.

See ya.

[glarius]

20. I think you've got it just about right!

For someone who keeps repeating that his main concern is for the hard-working, average citizen, Layton has done everything he could to assure that we would get Harper for P.M....:)

[Spazito]

21. Agree, all in the hopes of increasing their influence in the House

by winning a few more seats. If we do get a minority faux Con government, it will be fascinating to see how Mr. Layton works with them given their agenda is an anathema to the espoused principles stated by Mr. Layton. Will he compromise those principles in order to maintain his influence? How will he explain the push for privatized health care by the faux Cons which is a major focus for them? When the faux Cons bring in tax breaks for the rich in their budget, will Mr. Layton bring down the government? Will he risk forcing Canadians to the polls again so quickly using the same 'reason' he used to bring down the current government?

[Minstrel Boy]

22. There will be three opposition parties of roughly equivalent size.

The BQ are likely to gain concessions on Quebec autonomy for their support.

The Liberals will be in no shape to bring down a government and fight a new election, and their heart is not in defending a progressive agenda.

So, which party will be the Conservatives natural opposition?

[Spazito]

23. Your assumption the Libs will be in no shape to be an if not THE

effective opposition is based upon what? If the NDP were to be the faux Cons 'natural opposition', as I assume you are positing, then they will bring down the faux Con minority on their budget, will fight the faux Cons AFTER they get their minority government, if, indeed, they do, instead of fighting them during the campaign? Will that not look, dare I say, opportunistic?

[iverglas]

25. somebody's so desperate s/he is becoming incoherent

The bullshit branding info-mercial devised by Harper and Layton has worked.

Liberals will benifit from the loss of appetite for NDP dirty dealings evidenced during this election

Lordy. Talk about "personal attacks" and false accusations. This is just sad.

But about what one expects from Liberals.

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. Who?

[best left blank]

7. So...

Why are the liberal supporters attacking the NDP and letting the conservatives go unscathed. Apparently they hate everything the NDP stands for.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. I don't see the parallel there.

NDP calls liberals "corruption" and all forms of the word.

Liberals accuse NDP of going soft on the Conservatives.

What's the connection between the two?
The first one is a false accusation and the second is quite true.

[iverglas]

12. false accusation

Yup. There surely was one in there. Too bad it's the one you made yourself.

You keep making it, you keep failing to substantiate it, I'll keep calling it what it is.

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

[iverglas]

17. y'know, I'm almost starting to believe you

I'm almost ready to believe that you don't understand that "Layton's lying exposed in CBC 'your turn'!!" was a false accusation.

That you really aren't just unwilling to see through the transparent and dishonest demagoguery of the individual who asked the question on the CBC (or of the Peter Mansbridge who colluded in the little scam), but you're actually incapable of seeing through it.

(Any other possible explanations for your behaviour? Bring 'em on; I'll consider anything.)

Believe me, you should not be flattered that I'm prepared to believe that you're incapable of seeing it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. You misunderstand. Take it literally...

I didn't understand you because your post was nonsensical. There was no meaning in it.

As for the rest, go look at the transcript. Layton didn't answer the question, why not? Mansbridge had a WTF look on his face after it was over.

My 70 year old mother who ALWAYS votes NDP was flabergasted after that appearance of Layton because - in her words - "he never gave a straight answer"

Is that so hard for you to understand?

The question asked by that individual was legitimate and straightforward. How do you justify the use of the word "corruption"? He didn't, because he can't. It's just a personal attack.

What's his personal attack on Conservatives? "They're wrong on the issues". That's as far as he's willing to go against them. What have they promised him I wonder.....

[iverglas]

24. hard to understand?

Yup. Hard to understand things that make no sense.

The question was why Layton accused his LIBERAL OPPONENTS of corruption.

If you want to pretend that Layton has accused LIBERAL CANDIDATES or PAUL MARTIN of corruption, that's your problem.

That is not what the question was.

Since Layton has never accused LIBERAL CANDIDATES or PAUL MARTIN of corruption, he COULD NOT answer any question asking him why he had done it.

Why haven't you stopped beating your dog?

Why is this so hard to understand?

Loaded questions are one of the dirtiest, cheapest tactics of the nasty right-wing demagogue.

Jack Layton unfortunately doesn't seem to recognize them when he sees them.

On the other hand, the reason why they are used so often by nasty right-wing demagogues is that they place the person who is the target of them in a difficult position. The only proper way to respond to them is to say "I have never said what you are alleging I said; do you have a real question you want to ask?"

But you see the problem? Even THAT looks, to the untrained or prejudiced ear, like "dodging the question". And just look how well the tactic works. On your mother, apparently.

Peter Mansbridge is to blame for perpetuating the charade that the question was a real question or that it meant something it did not mean -- that Layton had accused LIBERAL CANDIDATES or PAUL MARTIN of corruption.

That is NOT what the questioner asked. I have no idea why you find this so difficult to understand. If you do.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GIVE A "STRAIGHT ANSWER" TO A CROOKED QUESTION. And you can like that or lump it.

Or you can compound the sin by continuing to pretend that Jack Layton HAS accused either LIBERAL CANDIDATES or PAUL MARTIN of corruption. It's only too bad that you would have no way of proving that that statement is true, because it's false.

But of course you know that I expect no better. I don't even expect you to admit that you understand this, even if you do.

What have they promised him I wonder.....

I don't know, I'm sure. Maybe if someone weren't engaged in nasty right-wing demagoguery, s/he would tell us his/her theory.

Or of course, s/he could just do what nasty right-wing demagogues do: keep on asking cheap, dirty loaded questions.

What have the Conservatives promised Jack Layton?

BZZZZZT. The question cannot be answered. No one can tell you what the Conservatives have promised Jack Layton, because the Conservatives HAVEN'T PROMISED JACK LAYTON ANYTHING.

Anyhow, that's a job for a Liberal, as I understand it.


Now, how do you justify Paul Martin, as Finance Minister, getting tax law enacted that COST CANADIAN TAXPAYERS BILLIONS and INCREASED HIS PERSONAL INCOME AND CORPORATE PROFITS?

And how the fuck could you stand there with your bare face hanging out and NOT CALL THAT CORRUPTION?

What a lot of hypocritical bleating, is all I can say.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Please clarify:

"If you want to pretend that Layton has accused LIBERAL CANDIDATES or PAUL MARTIN of corruption, that's your problem."

Are you suggesting that Jack Layton has not acccused the Liberals he's running against (ie. Liberal candidates in this election) of corruption?

That's hillareous!

[iverglas]

28. are you saying that Paul Martin molests little children??

Why would you say such a thing???

Are you suggesting that Jack Layton has not acccused the Liberals he's running against (ie. Liberal candidates in this election) of corruption?

Are you going to put your money where your very loud mouth is and tell us which Liberal candidates in this election Jack Layton has accused of corruption?

You can keep this up as long as you like. Looks good on you. It's your colour.

[Harper_is_Bush]

29. He's accused ALL THE LIBERALS HE'S RUNNING against.

Slow yourself down for a second.

You will agree that Layton has said:

"You don't have to choose corruption or conservatives"

It is quite obvious, to any honest person, that he is substituting the word "corruption" for the word "Liberals" in this line.
Therefore, logic dictates he's referring to the Liberals running in this election, since those are the only ones Canadians can choose from in this election.

I suggest you relax a little.

[iverglas]

31. nope.

I just love the smell of equivocation in the morning.

It is quite obvious, to any honest person, that he is substituting the word "corruption" for the word "Liberals" in this line.

Concise Oxford says:

equivocate use ambiguity to conceal the truth

The word "Liberals" is indeed ambiguous. It could actually mean "each and every person who belongs to the Liberal Party, votes for the Liberal Party, works for the Liberal Party or is a candidate for the Liberal Party".

Oddly enough, it seldom means that as used, or UNDERSTOOD, by ordinary reasonable decent people.

If you want to claim that this is how YOU understand it, as used by Jack Layton, you go right ahead. Anybody listening can choose to believe you, or not.

What anybody believes you believe, let alone what you believe, still won't have the slightest influence on what is/was meant by Jack Layton or anyone else using the word. You do understand this, do you? Maybe you actually don't.

Therefore, logic dictates he's referring to the Liberals running in this election, since those are the only ones Canadians can choose from in this election.

Common sense and common decency dictate that one take his meaning to be "the Liberal Party", which is the party that is fielding the candidates that Canadians get to choose if they like, and that said candidates voluntarily chose to associate themselves with.

But you go ahead and think / claim to think / say otherwise. Looks good on ya. Your face should really be as red as your party colours, but perhaps the "shame" gene is missing.

I suggest you relax a little.

Yeah. If everybody relaxed a little more, just think what Liberals could get away with.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

37. ah, I see

that you still haven't solved the telltale beat of your prose.

I remember you well. Enjoy your latest stay.

[glarius]

36. Welcome aboard artistmate!

You sound like someone with common sense! Don't worry about your punctuation. We all make mistakes in spelling or punctuation at times. Even me, and God knows I'm brilliant! Hahaha! :hi:

[artistmate]

39. thanks Darius

I,m usually more of a voyeur than a participant but the shit that,s going on south of the border and now up here is making me crazy.I almost feel violent at times,hence the shortage of patience with his nibs.

[iverglas]

41. some of us make punctuation mistakes sometimes

Some of us make a particular one all the time.

And some of us

the shortage of patience with his nibs

make the most grossly stupid ... and unspeakably rude ... and enormously funny ... assumptions.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoping4Change]

38. Is always good to see new members but it seems in your enthusiasm

to sign up you breezed through DU rules, namely

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

I especially object to this attack on Iverglas. That Iverglas goes for the jugular when arguing a point, I don't dispute but that doesn't make Iverglas a fruitcake. I think Iverglas is an invaluable member of DU. I find her grasp on issues formidable. If you have but one tenth of Iverglas' ability to articulate a position and sustain an argument then you will be a valued DUer.

[artistmate]

40. sheesh

As I said , it was after reading her smug and condescending posts that I was moved to comment.
I didn,t notice any tone of respect in them.
Did I mention that they seem long-winded?

I think posts might have been the wrong word.
Please excuse my edginess.
This election is making me nuts.

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. Oh come on, get off it..

The word "Liberal" is ambiguous as Layton has been using it either coupled with the word "corruption" or completely replaced with the word "corruption"??

I should put up a definition of "bullshit" for you.

There is no ambiguity in it when Layton is talking about who you will vote for. There are a limitted, specific group of Liberals running in this election. Those are the people Jack Layton is calling "corrupt".

Your argument is truely laughable. You should have been working for the Layton campaign with a talent for avoidence like that.

[V. Kid]

50. Iverglass how dare you not agree with them, come off it okay....

...just come off it. ;)

[V. Kid]

30. Talk to judge Gomery, he said it himself.

[iverglas]

33. shall we make it easy?

Off the top of a google seach for gomery "liberal party" corrupt:

http://www.canada.com/national/features/gomery/story.html?id=8243a55f-4692-4df5-9019-8bbcb7c03294

In his long-anticipated report, Gomery concluded that a kickback scheme funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was scathing in its attack on the program, saying public trust was "subverted and betrayed" and that Canadians were rightly outraged over the scandal not just because their money was wasted and misappropriated, but because "no one was held responsible."

... Despite Gomery's finding that members of the Quebec wing of his party were corrupt, Martin said he is still proud to be a Liberal.

... Martin tiptoed around Gomery's condemnation of his predecessor's role in the sponsorship program saying only that he accepted the judge's conclusions and that it would be up to each individual to react in his or her own way

Hmm. Could one call that "praising with faint damnation" maybe?

As well, as leader of the federal Liberals, Martin announced his party will pay the public treasury a total of $1.14 million to make up for the dirty money donated by sponsorship contracts. The Liberal party had previously set aside $750,000 for this purpose.

Cripey. Can you imagine ANY political party receiving $1.14 million and not wanting some idea of where the hell it came from and why it was being donated ... if it didn't already know?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliament/party-finance/financing-party-politics.html

2001

Liberal Party of Canada
Individuals ($2,384,538), Businesses ($6,411,391), Unions ($40,481)

2002

Liberal Party of Canada
Individuals ($3,129,405), Businesses ($5,144,528), Unions ($51,214)

2003

Liberal Party of Canada
Individuals ($6,194,925), Businesses ($10,816,396), Unions ($111,938)

A little thing like $1,140,000 -- in a single province, over a fairly short time period, and before 2001 when I'll assume total donations were otherwise lower than in 2001-2-3 -- would have been easy not to notice, I guess ... if, of course, one believes that that was the sum total of the kickbacks, small fraction of the money paid out by the Cdn govt for no return though it is. Can't think of any real reason to believe that, myself, or to ignore the fact that it doesn't even include corrupt practices such as using money paid out under the sponsorship program that was used (supposedly) to give jobs to Liberal party stalwarts, and who will ever know what else?

Gomery:

"The unrecorded contributions are blameworthy, and deserve to be denounced. They were inspired by Mr. Brault's greed and desire for financial gain, which he believed could be achieved by the purchase of political influence resulting in a greater number of lucrative sponsorship contracts being given to Groupaction," says the report.

How naive would somone have to be to believe that it worked in this direction -- hand out lots and lots of money, and oh look! someone gave some to our party! maybe we should give him some more money! -- rather than the obvious one: hand out lots and lots of money on the express commitment that a good bit of it will be handed over to our party. Geez, even Bombardier expected to pay the money first and get the contracts second:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliament/party-finance/financing-party-politics.html

For example, according to Democracy Watch, in 2001 Bombardier Inc. donated over $140,000 to the Liberal Party and subsequently received over $100 million in government contracts.

And it only paid 1/10 of what the Liberal Party got out of the sponsorship funding.

And how obviously unlikely is it that anybody who was anybody in the party had to have at least figured it out, even without knowing about it ahead of time.

Bloody duh. Who really thinks that Canadians are stupid enough to believe this? Not even Stephen Harper, I'd imagine.

Maybe not *all* Canadians saw the obvious answer -- the whole thing was a scheme to funnel money to the Liberal Party -- the very first time they even heard about the whole thing (the way yours truly did), but with three seconds' thought it really is kind of impossible not to figure out ... unless one tries really really hard.

[Hoping4Change]

42. Layton may have refrained from explicitly accusing Martin and

Liberal candidates of corruption by deftly using the term Liberal oppponents but whichever way you slice it he is being cagey. I wager that 99% of Canadians if asked to whom Layton is referring would reply that he is referring to Martin and other Liberal candidates.

[Spazito]

43. Bingo, well said!

The message was clear, crystal clear.

[iverglas]

45. Gosh

I wager that 99% of Canadians if asked to whom Layton is referring would reply that he is referring to Martin and other Liberal candidates.

I thought it was Stephen Harper who thought Canadians were stupid.

The NDP must have been working its magic long before the election was called ...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051208/elxn_corruption_survey_051211?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

The survey was taken before the Gomery inquiry heard sensational allegations of Liberal party operatives stuffing their pockets with wads of cash while others were accused of pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars for little or no work.

... On a scale of one to five, where one indicates "not corrupt'' and five indicates "extremely corrupt,'' Canada's political parties scored a 3.9 -- same as the U.S. Israel received a 4.5.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115789648558_43/?hub=TopStories

Poll finds PM's honesty an issue as Tories lead

Updated Wed. May. 11 2005 8:38 AM ET

When asked to name which of the leaders is the most dishonest:

63 per cent of Canadians picked Martin;
20 per cent chose Harper;
5 per cent of respondents said NDP Leader Jack Layton; and
3 per cent named Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

The picture becomes even bleaker for Martin. A stunning 61 per cent of Canadians say they believe he would lie if it would help him politically; 54 per cent call him hypocritical; while 47 percent say he's indecisive.

... No leader enjoys the popularity of Jack Layton, however. Despite his party's perennial third and fourth place finishes, Canadians seem to continue to see Layton in a positive light.

Stupid, stupid voters.

I guess the NDP's campaign has to be credited with this:
http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=570489
(Ipsos-Reid press release)

TORONTO/ON--(CCNMatthews - Dec. 3, 2005)

And most Canadians (56%, -5 points from May 2004) agree that the "federal Liberal Party is fundamentally corrupt and does not deserve to be re-elected".

... even though it dates from before the election was called ...

Given other factors, like (same survey):

Over half (55%) of Canadians agree with the statement that "Stephen Harper is just too extreme to be Canada's Prime Minister" (30% strongly agree) - up 9 points from a survey conducted in June of 2004 just before the federal election.

-- well, gee, what a bizarre thing for the NDP to do: solicit the votes of people who do not want to vote for the Conservative Party *and* do not like the Liberal Party. Hmm. Who could possibly have come up with that idea?

[iverglas]

46. by the way

Did what you said have something to do with what was in the post of mine that you responded to?

[Hoping4Change]

47. Not that post per se but to the argument that has unfolded through out

this thread.

[Harper_is_Bush]

49. From the Gomery report:

Paul Martin should be "exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct".

And no liberal candidate is implicated in the sponsorship scandel.

If we can just figure out who Jack Layton is talking about. :eyes:

[iverglas]

51. "If we can just figure out who Jack Layton is talking about."

Yes indeed. If we just lived in a country where there were no political parties, and if Paul Martin and all the rest of the Liberal Party candidates in this election didn't belong to a party ... well, we'd have a hard time figuring out who Jack Layton was talking about indeed.

I guess you live in just such a place. Funny how hard you work to shill for the Liberal Party when it apparently doesn't exist in your world.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. Lying Liberal liars and the lies they tell

Liberal and Conservative MPs join together to fight woman’s right to choose

Fri 20 Jan 2006

The Liberal Party of Canada has just attacked Conservative MP Jason Kenney for his well-known opposition to abortion. But less than two years ago, a host of Liberal MPs joined Conservatives like Jason Kenney at the Ottawa March for Life, pledging strong support for the fight against a woman’s right to choose.

"Let's not go on killing the children who are our future," urged Paul Steckle (L-Huron Bruce, Ont.). "We will continue to make (life) an issue." "Life is our future," noted Brian Fitzpatrick (C-Prince Albert, Sask.), while Dr. James Lunney (C-Nanaimo-Alberni, B.C.) congratulated Canadian pro-lifers for being "heroes and champions of truth." Paul Szabo (L-Mississauga South, Ont.) got a standing ovation from the other MPs for his valiant efforts against new reproductive technologies Bill C-13, and Dan McTeague (L-Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Ont.) said he and other pro-life MPs are proud of taking the positions they have on life issues.

Tom Wappel (L-Scarborough Southwest, Ont.) urged pro-lifers to make their and others' votes count in the upcoming federal election, while Cheryl Gallant (C-Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke, Ont.) said there was no difference between the barbarity of the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq and the destruction of the preborn in Canada. "Keep up the fight," she urged.

Jason Kenney (C-Calgary Southeast, Albta) also encouraged pro-lifers to "never give up the fight" and attacked those MPs who say they're personally opposed to abortion, but don't do anything about it legislatively. Janko Peric (L-Cambridge, Ont.) and Reed Elley (C-Nanaimo-Cowichan, B.C.) were among the other MPs who addressed the crowd...

http://www.ndp.ca/page/3367

[iverglas]

13. makes yer skin crawl

don't it?