[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think again sunshine. I'm defending the use of the EI fund to pay down the debt and use in in general revenue, something the courts found legal.

I didn't know about the condition of informing parliment based on an ancient law about no taxation without representation and don't know why they failed to do so on 3 occasions.

Seems the act was legal as long as they were informing parliment.

Thye found it illegal and that the liberals broke the law by changing the rates without going through the demiocractic proccess. Which means no debate int he commons and Canaidans were denied their porper opportunity to have thier MP's know of their views.


You having troubles here son, you can spew all the liberal party trash you want. The Supreme Court of Canada ust gave the Liberal Party a huge smackdown by saying what they did was illegal. And you you keep wanting to say they were right to break the law

You just can't understand english can you?

I'm not saying they were right when they failed to inform parliment.

I'm saying they were right to use it in general funds and were abviously following the law all the other times.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think again sunshine. I'm defending the use of the EI fund to pay down the debt and use in in general revenue, something the courts found legal.

I didn't know about the condition of informing parliment based on an ancient law about no taxation without representation and don't know why they failed to do so on 3 occasions.

Seems the act was legal as long as they were informing parliment.

Thye found it illegal and that the liberals broke the law by changing the rates without going through the demiocractic proccess. Which means no debate int he commons and Canaidans were denied their porper opportunity to have thier MP's know of their views.


You having troubles here son, you can spew all the liberal party trash you want. The Supreme Court of Canada ust gave the Liberal Party a huge smackdown by saying what they did was illegal. And you you keep wanting to say they were right to break the law

You just can't understand english can you?

I'm not saying they were right when they failed to inform parliment.

I'm saying they were right to use it in general funds and were abviously following the law all the other times.

And im saying you cant be claiming to be doing the right thing, when you originally broke the law in order to do that 'right' thing you claim the liberal party did. The Supreme Court (not exactly a bastion of conservative party thought) found the liberals guilty, and yet eve after that ruling, you still try to defend that they did the right thing????

You say i have a problem with english?, i think you have a problem with the very basic issues of legal and illegal

[uwish]

whether or not this was legal (and it appears there was some impropriety) the fact is those '50 billion' was one of the reasons the liberals were able to post a surplus. Sure puts a dent in their claims they were 'fiscally responsible' an takes away much of the validity of their crying over the 2.5 years the CPC has been in power.

[HyperionTheEvil]

uwish uwish:

whether or not this was legal (and it appears there was some impropriety) the fact is those '50 billion' was one of the reasons the liberals were able to post a surplus.

for the liberal dfendes here, they're basically proud of balancing claiming to balance the budget. what they don't like to hear is that they broke the law doing it, and by balancing the budget at the cost of the unemployed

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

And im saying you cant be claiming to be doing the right thing, when you originally broke the law in order to do that 'right' thing you claim the liberal party did. The Supreme Court (not exactly a bastion of conservative party thought) found the liberals guilty, and yet eve after that ruling, you still try to defend that they did the right thing????

You say i have a problem with english?, i think you have a problem with the very basic issues of legal and illegal

Originally? They were perfectly legit from 96 through to 2001. They were originally legal and they were lowering the EI premium each and every year.

Its entirely likely that the whole informing parliment amounted to nothing more then a rubberstamp.

You still don't get it do you?

I'm not defending that they were wrong to not inform parliment of the rate change those 3 years.

Are you following?

I'm saying they were right to use the EI funds in general revenue.

The supreme court says that as well as sayting they did everything legal all the other years.

As for what they did? Neglecting to inform parliment that they were lowering the rate?

Talk about grasping at straws. The bitching from Harper and just about everybody else was that the Liberals were illegally using the EI surplus in general revenue, something we now know to be false.

Lowering the EI premium without properly consulting parliment? Well call the UN because corruption in Canada has just gone nuclear.

You cons certainly know about wrong don't you. Harper howls up and down about the Liberals using the EI surplus then what does he do the second he gets into office?

The exact same thing, just like he did with regards to floor crossing, political partisanship, pork-barreling, croynism, QC pandering, shfating the military, breaking promises, etc.

Hypocrites aren't we all.

[DerbyX]

uwish uwish:

whether or not this was legal (and it appears there was some impropriety) the fact is those '50 billion' was one of the reasons the liberals were able to post a surplus. Sure puts a dent in their claims they were 'fiscally responsible' an takes away much of the validity of their crying over the 2.5 years the CPC has been in power.

50 billion out of the 100 they paid down and lets not forget that they should only be held accountable for their budget without including the deficit they were handed (~30 billion) and the interest they had to pay on the debt (at 2% ~25 billion).

lets also not forget that if you aren't going to count the EI surplus funds (which you should since they are deducted from income tax owing and this come out of general revenue), then Harper can't claim them either which means we are some extra 10 billion or so in the red.

Harper is using those funds in the same way also so both get credit no matter which way you view using the EI surplus.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

uwish uwish:

whether or not this was legal (and it appears there was some impropriety) the fact is those '50 billion' was one of the reasons the liberals were able to post a surplus.

for the liberal dfendes here, they're basically proud of balancing claiming to balance the budget. what they don't like to hear is that they broke the law doing it, and by balancing the budget at the cost of the unemployed

You just don't get it do you?

The budget was balanced before 2001. The supreme court of Canada said the didn't break the law until 2002.

That means they balanced the budget without breaking the law.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

And im saying you cant be claiming to be doing the right thing, when you originally broke the law in order to do that 'right' thing you claim the liberal party did. The Supreme Court (not exactly a bastion of conservative party thought) found the liberals guilty, and yet eve after that ruling, you still try to defend that they did the right thing????

You say i have a problem with english?, i think you have a problem with the very basic issues of legal and illegal

Originally? They were perfectly legit from 96 through to 2001. They were originally legal and they were lowering the EI premium each and every year.

Its entirely likely that the whole informing parliment amounted to nothing more then a rubberstamp.

You still don't get it do you?

I'm not defending that they were wrong to not inform parliment of the rate change those 3 years.

Are you following?

I'm saying they were right to use the EI funds in general revenue.

The supreme court says that as well as sayting they did everything legal all the other years.

As for what they did? Neglecting to inform parliment that they were lowering the rate?

Talk about grasping at straws. The bitching from Harper and just about everybody else was that the Liberals were illegally using the EI surplus in general revenue, something we now know to be false.

Lowering the EI premium without properly consulting parliment? Well call the UN because corruption in Canada has just gone nuclear.

You cons certainly know about wrong don't you. Harper howls up and down about the Liberals using the EI surplus then what does he do the second he gets into office?

The exact same thing, just like he did with regards to floor crossing, political partisanship, pork-barreling, croynism, QC pandering, shfating the military, breaking promises, etc.

Hypocrites aren't we all.

you say they did/wrong' , do you finally admit now that they broke the law. Important quetion of credbility here, because if you say they still did the right thing then im afraid your days of being taken even a little seriously rides on it.You come back with liberal rhetoric and try to excuse away their criminal acts because you claim they did the right thing anyways. and through in some partisanship for the hell of it

The liberals have been found guilty in the highest court of the land, in the eyes of the law even though your intentions (and the liberal party intentions are open to question) may've been good (and who knows what their real intent was). The this does not give people the ability to break the law because they can later claim , as you did

$1:

The Liberals did great

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

uwish uwish:

whether or not this was legal (and it appears there was some impropriety) the fact is those '50 billion' was one of the reasons the liberals were able to post a surplus.

for the liberal dfendes here, they're basically proud of balancing claiming to balance the budget. what they don't like to hear is that they broke the law doing it, and by balancing the budget at the cost of the unemployed

You just don't get it do you?

The budget was balanced before 2001. The supreme court of Canada said the didn't break the law until 2002.

That means they balanced the budget without breaking the law.

But they did break the law , yes or no?

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

you say they did/wrong' , do you finally admit now that they broke the law. Important quetion of credbility here, because if you say they still did the right thing then im afraid your days of being taken even a little seriously rides on it.You come back with liberal rhetoric and try to excuse away their criminal acts because you claim they did the right thing anyways. and through in some partisanship for the hell of it

The liberals have been found guilty in the highest court of the land, in the eyes of the law even though your intentions (and the liberal party intentions are open to question) may've been good (and who knows what their real intent was). The this does not give people the ability to break the law because they can later claim , as you did

$1:

The Liberals did great

1) They did great paying down the debt and budgetting properly. They did great lowering the Ei premiums and instituting all those workfare programs instead of "perpetuating the welfare state" as you cons often claim they do. They did great paying down the debt to the detrimet of their support.

Thats what they did great.

2) You are dodging the fact you lied about them breaking the law to balance the budget. I just proved to you that they didn't.

3) Are you so blindly stupid you can't see that the lowering of the EI rate was going to be rubberstamped by parliment anyway like the other 6 times? What, do you believe parliment would have raised it?

At best they lowered it illegally thus meaning everybody should owe money.

BTW:
1993 3.00
1994 3.07
1995 3.00
1996 2.95
1997 2.90
1998 2.70
1999 2.55
2000 2.40
2001 2.25
2002 2.20
2003 2.10
2004 1.98
2005 1.95
2006 1.87
2007 1.80
2008 1.73
2009 1.73

So tell me what exactly would affect would it have had had they properly infomred parliment of the rate change? Same thing?

4) Since you are affirming that the court has the final say then you fully support that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are innocent of any and all accusations abotu them concerning adscam! Thanks!

Oh, Ralph Goodale also thanks you for affirming that the RCMP acting inappropriately releasing information concerning the income trust thing and that it unfairly impacted negatively on the Liberals, something the court also ruled on.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

you say they did/wrong' , do you finally admit now that they broke the law. Important quetion of credbility here, because if you say they still did the right thing then im afraid your days of being taken even a little seriously rides on it.You come back with liberal rhetoric and try to excuse away their criminal acts because you claim they did the right thing anyways. and through in some partisanship for the hell of it

The liberals have been found guilty in the highest court of the land, in the eyes of the law even though your intentions (and the liberal party intentions are open to question) may've been good (and who knows what their real intent was). The this does not give people the ability to break the law because they can later claim , as you did

$1:

The Liberals did great

1) They did great paying down the debt and budgetting properly. They did great lowering the Ei premiums and instituting all those workfare programs instead of "perpetuating the welfare state" as you cons often claim they do. They did great paying down the debt to the detrimet of their support.

Thats what they did great.

2) You are dodging the fact you lied about them breaking the law to balance the budget. I just proved to you that they didn't.

3) Are you so blindly stupid you can't see that the lowering of the EI rate was going to be rubberstamped by parliment anyway like the other 6 times? What, do you believe parliment would have raised it?

At best they lowered it illegally thus meaning everybody should owe money.

BTW:
1993 3.00
1994 3.07
1995 3.00
1996 2.95
1997 2.90
1998 2.70
1999 2.55
2000 2.40
2001 2.25
2002 2.20
2003 2.10
2004 1.98
2005 1.95
2006 1.87
2007 1.80
2008 1.73
2009 1.73

So tell me what exactly would affect would it have had had they properly infomred parliment of the rate change? Same thing?

4) Since you are affirming that the court has the final say then you fully support that Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are innocent of any and all accusations abotu them concerning adscam! Thanks!

Oh, Ralph Goodale also thanks you for affirming that the RCMP acting inappropriately releasing information concerning the income trust thing and that it unfairly impacted negatively on the Liberals, something the court also ruled on.

Did they or did they not break the law, with regards to the EI Scandal? The Candian Supreme court says they did. do you differ with that guilty verdict?

That's the real issue your avoiding, you are saying that they were perfectly right to break the law as long they claim they were doing the right thing by denying Canadians there right to have thier views taken, an open democractic vote in Parliement.You can crunch numbers all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the highest court in the land found that Liberals broke the law. And here you are, defending them


Did the liberal party break the law in your view, yes or no?

[hwacker]

liberal hack liberal hack:

They did great paying down the debt and budgetting properly

Also great in breaking the laws and stealing from the taxpayers. Don’t strive too high there DX, your heroes are a bunch lying thieving aholes.

[Brenda]

hwacker hwacker:

liberal hack liberal hack:

They did great paying down the debt and budgetting properly

Also great in breaking the laws and stealing from the taxpayers. Don’t strive too high there DX, your heroes are a bunch lying thieving aholes.

Doesn't that go for all?

[HyperionTheEvil]

hwacker hwacker:

liberal hack liberal hack:

They did great paying down the debt and budgetting properly

Also great in breaking the laws and stealing from the taxpayers. Don’t strive too high there DX, your heroes are a bunch lying thieving aholes.

It exactly like saying that a Corporation can be proud of making a huge profit, what they don't mention is that the CEO's (in this case Chretien and Martin) raided the retirement funds to do it.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Did they or did they not break the law, with regards to the EI Scandal? The Candian Supreme court says they did. do you differ with that guilty verdict?

That's the real issue your avoiding, you are saying that they were perfectly right to break the law as long they claim they were doing the right thing by denying Canadians there right to have thier views taken, an open democractic vote in Parliement.You can crunch numbers all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the highest court in the land found that Liberals broke the law. And here you are, defending them


Did the liberal party break the law in your view, yes or no?

You will not answer my questions. You cons always do that. Demand answers yet provide none.

I'll respond when you answer these questions:

1) Was Harper wrong to howl about the Liberals using the EI surplus yet use it in exactly the same way?

2) Do you acknowledge that the Liberals legally balanced the budget before 2002?

3) Do you fundementally agree that using the EI surplus as general revenue funds is entirely legal?

4) Do you acknowledge that Chretien and Martin are innocent of any connection to adscam as ruled by the courts?

You answer first sunshine and you'll get your answer.