CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:35 am
 


Evidence based on the recollection of a man on cancer medication, of a private conversation. No proof other than some book based on this recollection and even that is being changed and recounted.

$1:
Publisher 'stops presses' to change Cadman book
May 17 or 19, or both? Disputed date of disputed meeting comes out


http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/ ... 2f363e0522

The fact that you see no difference between this wild accusation and a genuine scandal like ADSCAM shows what a hack you are.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:46 am
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
Evidence based on the recollection of a man on cancer medication, of a private conversation. No proof other than some book based on this recollection and even that is being changed and recounted.

$1:
Publisher 'stops presses' to change Cadman book
May 17 or 19, or both? Disputed date of disputed meeting comes out


http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/ ... 2f363e0522

The fact that you see no difference between this wild accusation and a genuine scandal like ADSCAM shows what a hack you are.


Wild accusation? I think not. Harper admits to offering "financial consideration" to try and gain the support of a dying man.

Thats the facts.

Nothing you say can change that.

Adscam was fully investigated by a public inquiry called by the Liberals.

Thats the difference. Everytime your corrupt party does exactly what you screamed about when the Liberals did it you simply shrug your sholders, smile, and quietly slink away or simply turn around and attack the Liberals.

Throughout this entire affair you con hackjobs did everything possible to turn around and attack the Liberals or call Donna Cadman a liar or anyone else who dared call your corrupt party out for its misdeeds.

Truly a statement about the lack of ethics you possess.

You even pointed to Donna new (and likely coerced) statement as "the truth" when you were screaming about her being a despicable liar only moments ago.

pathetic. :roll:

The only conservative person on here who called it truly was Eyebrock. He knows it happened and undestands its part of politics though I think he is disgusted with Harper trying to put the screws to a dying man.

Face it. Everything you pissed and moaned about the Liberals has been done by your party and then some.

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

That man (your candidate) choose to stand with the Liberals that day, a testiment to his dignity and honour).

Sorry for your luck. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:54 am
 


It started off with some million dollar life insurance policy, now it's changed to "financial consideration" because all the experts are refuting even the possibility of such a plan.
First Donna came out strongly behind the story then she comes out against it.
Benoit is mentioning these 2 particular CPC fellows but Chuck and Donna both say that these people were never named.
Now the date of the meeting in question is being struck from the book because, as the author says "we just don't know"

"we just don't know" pretty much sums up you're entire list of proof, doesn't it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:09 am
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
It started off with some million dollar life insurance policy, now it's changed to "financial consideration" because all the experts are refuting even the possibility of such a plan.
First Donna came out strongly behind the story then she comes out against it.
Benoit is mentioning these 2 particular CPC fellows but Chuck and Donna both say that these people were never named.
Now the date of the meeting in question is being struck from the book because, as the author says "we just don't know"

"we just don't know" pretty much sums up you're entire list of proof, doesn't it.


No. This is what I mean by you cons can't read.

Both Donna and her Daughter said that Chuck was furious about the bribe attempt and that he was offered a million dollare life insurance policy.

Harper is on tape telling the author he only "meant to offer Chuck Financial considerations" for voting against Martin in any election expense he may incur.

Learn to fucking read properly or don't fucking waste my time.

BTW, here is where yours (and others) hypocracy comes into play.

1) You have Harper admitting that an offer was to be made to Chuck yet its his widow thats lying about the amount and not Harper. What proof do you have that he is telling the truth considering that he is on tape saying that an offer was to be made.

2) Its a bunch of bollocks that Harper was only trying to assure Chuck that they will cover his election expenses (they do that anyway) especially considering that he knew Chuck was dying and simply wouldn't be able to fight another election.

All Harper wanted was his support for that one vote and for that he offered "financial considerations". Thats the point of contention and the point that makes Harper a despicable bastard.

3) The million dollar policy was offered by Harpers bagmen and the fact that they probably wouldn't have been able to get just means they were willing to lie to Chuck to get his vote. Its not as if Chuck could have sued them later for "non-payment of bribe".

4) You bastards attacked the mans widow and daughter as lying when they had not one single reason yet Harper has every reason to lie. You are flaming hypocrites.

Not only does Cadmans daughter talk about your corrupt party accusing her father of being bribed by the Liberals but she gives a very reasonable and plausible explanation why the man himself decided to avoid the political scandal surrounding what surely would have been following him to his grave.

Dying man tell their family the truth.

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

Nothing you say can change that fact.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:59 am
 


This is an example of how ragged and inconsistent you're story has become:

Both Donna and her Daughter said that Chuck was furious about the bribe attempt and that he was offered a million dollar life insurance policy.
Harper is on tape telling the author he only "meant to offer Chuck Financial considerations"

Which was the bribe, the fictional million dollar policy or the financial considerations"?

I've been quite clear that paying for candidate expenses is not illegal and is obviously what Harper was talking about.
I guess envelopes stuffed full of thousands of dollars may be common in the Liberal party but I believe that CPC candidates do run and finance their own campaigns.


You're moral accusations have absolutely no grounds. It's obvious now that the Cadman family has been manipulated and abused by the Liberal party, as pawns in their desperate grasp for power. I now believe that this book about Cadman's life has been twisted into a political weapon by the Liberals and the proof is the signature of paul martin on the foreword.
The book of Cadman's life and career would have been an inspirational story without this unproven rumor.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2879
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:01 am
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
It started off with some million dollar life insurance policy, now it's changed to "financial consideration" because all the experts are refuting even the possibility of such a plan.
First Donna came out strongly behind the story then she comes out against it.
Benoit is mentioning these 2 particular CPC fellows but Chuck and Donna both say that these people were never named.
Now the date of the meeting in question is being struck from the book because, as the author says "we just don't know"

"we just don't know" pretty much sums up you're entire list of proof, doesn't it.



so have they suddenly started to change there story . that is interesting if they have. makes it sound much less credible if credible at all .

maybe they should just admit it doesn't ad up and can't be proven anyways . and that they just wnated to smear harper personally over the matter .


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:13 am
 


ryan29 ryan29:
ridenrain ridenrain:
It started off with some million dollar life insurance policy, now it's changed to "financial consideration" because all the experts are refuting even the possibility of such a plan.
First Donna came out strongly behind the story then she comes out against it.
Benoit is mentioning these 2 particular CPC fellows but Chuck and Donna both say that these people were never named.
Now the date of the meeting in question is being struck from the book because, as the author says "we just don't know"

"we just don't know" pretty much sums up you're entire list of proof, doesn't it.



so have they suddenly started to change there story . that is interesting if they have. makes it sound much less credible if credible at all .

maybe they should just admit it doesn't ad up and can't be proven anyways . and that they just wnated to smear harper personally over the matter .


The only people changing their story is the CPC.

$1:
The Conservatives have not yet explained why they first denied any offer had been made, only to later say a repayable loan was offered to Cadman's local riding association to cover campaign expenses if he rejoined the party.

Repeated appeals to the Prime Minister's Office since the Chuck Cadman affair surfaced have failed to yield direct answers to the following questions:

1. Did anyone from the Conservative party, or connected to the Tories, offer Cadman a $1-million life insurance policy?

-Refused to directly answer the question. Tory MP James Moore has repeatedly said officials only offered to take Cadman back into the party.

2. What did Stephen Harper mean when he said in a 2005 interview that "an offer" that included "financial considerations" was made to Cadman?

-Conservative party spokesman Ryan Sparrow said Monday the offer Cadman mentioned in a TV interview was a repayable loan to the local riding association.

3. If Tory officials Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley offered a repayable loan, what was the amount and what were the terms of repayment?

-No answer.

4. Why did the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives first deny an offer had been made to Cadman, only to later say a repayable loan was offered?

-No answer.

5. Why didn't Harper reveal last week that he told Dona Cadman more than two years ago that he didn't know about the alleged life-insurance offer?

-No answer.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3469
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:13 am
 


still not practising what you preach. And, give me one reason why we should ask to have some of your posts deleted for the personal attacks that you have written?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:04 am
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
Evidence based on the recollection of a man on cancer medication, of a private conversation. No proof other than some book based on this recollection and even that is being changed and recounted.


I would not want to see you in charge of the search for more evidences.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3469
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:09 pm
 


Derby, I dont apreciate your rude and vulgar remarks directed at others, could you please restrict yourself to the topic at hand, and/or civilized comments to others?

If you want my advice, practising what you preach would be a good start. It would establish a more logical approach to your content.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:13 pm
 


Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Derby, I dont apreciate your rude and vulgar remarks directed at others, could you please restrict yourself to the topic at hand, and/or civilized comments to others?

If you want my advice, practising what you preach would be a good start. It would establish a more logical approach to your content.


You assholes attack the Liberals day and night, call them and their supporters every name in the book and think you deserve respect? Dream on.

Its time you put your money where your mouth is and start taking your own advice.

I have used both logic and evidence in this thread and all you have is emotional rhetoric followed by red herring attacks on the Liberals using the very tactics you accused me of.

When you finally grow up and learn not to be a hypocrite then maybe you will get the respect you think you deserve. Until then you will simply have to accept that you deserve what you get.

What goes around comes around. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:16 pm
 


Benoit Benoit:
ridenrain ridenrain:
Evidence based on the recollection of a man on cancer medication, of a private conversation. No proof other than some book based on this recollection and even that is being changed and recounted.


I would not want to see you in charge of the search for more evidences.


These sad rumors and recolections of deathbed confessions may be good enough for divorce court or the argument of children in the back seat of a car but they are not going to make it to court. I'd kind of wish they would just so we can see martin and the CBC slapped with not reporting a crime.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:23 pm
 


Way to go, Demo Derby. Whine and shout louder. It must be so frustrating that no one is believing you're spin, even with all the powers of the CBC handing you cut & paste material.

No comment about my theory that the book was a liberal dirty tricks product? I wonder if the Cadman family even knew that the final prodcut was going to be hyped so much. That would explain Donna's strange and hesitant reactions to the reporters questions, and her retraction when she realizes that those Liberal bastards just wrecked her whole political carreer.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2879
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:54 pm
 


DerbyX DerbyX:
Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:
Derby, I dont apreciate your rude and vulgar remarks directed at others, could you please restrict yourself to the topic at hand, and/or civilized comments to others?

If you want my advice, practising what you preach would be a good start. It would establish a more logical approach to your content.


You assholes attack the Liberals day and night, call them and their supporters every name in the book and think you deserve respect? Dream on.

Its time you put your money where your mouth is and start taking your own advice.

I have used both logic and evidence in this thread and all you have is emotional rhetoric followed by red herring attacks on the Liberals using the very tactics you accused me of.

When you finally grow up and learn not to be a hypocrite then maybe you will get the respect you think you deserve. Until then you will simply have to accept that you deserve what you get.

What goes around comes around. :roll:



so you truly believe dion and the liberals can prove any of this happened in court ? without any solid evidence or paperwork to back up claims .

and do you really believe this is the first time a party has tried to get an independent mp to come back ?

others have been courted by various parties over the years , that is nothing unusal . look at garth turner as an example .


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:09 pm
 


Lets see if we can clear this up.

Tom writes a book and in it he details facts about Harper and his party trying to bribe Chuck Cadman to vote against the Liberals.

Chucks wife Donna is the main source and she backs up her account of what her husband told her. No reason for her to lie.

con response: That lying, backstabbing whore. red herring attack on Liberals.

Their daughter confirms the story about what he rfather said, reiterating it and providing reasons why he didn't press his claim in parliment.

con response: That lying dirty bitch. Red herring attack on Liberals.
Additional con response: Where is the evidence?

Audio tape surfaces showing Harper was fully aware of the meeting and gave his blessing to promise Chuck "Financial considerations".

Con response: Either "faked" or "so what, it was only for other reasons". Red herring attack on Liberals.

A radio interview surfaces in which Cadman talks about the bribe attempt.

Con response: That lying bastard. Red herring attack on Liberals.

An asshole writes a column in which all questions and blame is heaped on the Cadmans.

con response: See, its all a conspiracy. whew. Red herring attack on Liberals.

Donna Cadman after a week of standing by her statement suddenly releases a statement in which she question Harper about the bribe attempt and believed his response.

con response: That wonderful woman is telling the truth and Harper is vindicated. red herring attack on Liberals blaming them for everything.

What a pathetic bunch of political hacks you are.

The entire country knows the truth about your corrupt party now and the only people who don't accept the truth are corrupt bastards who vote only conservative and would elect a fencepost if it was painted blue.

That pretty much sums up the entire affair.

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

You know it. We know it. Canada knows it.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 294 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 11  12  13  14  15  16  17 ... 20  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.