[DerbyX]

Just to clarify a few things:

$1:

The Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux, one of Quebec's leading labour organizations, had demanded that $54- billion in allegedly diverted premiums be returned to the EI system and used to fund future benefits to jobless workers.

The court issued no order for repayment and limited its criticism of federal actions to just three years out of the last dozen.

Internet Links
Supreme Court: Read the ruling
The key finding of unlawful taxation applies to EI contributions collected in 2002, 2003 and 2005. In those years the federal cabinet directly set EI premium rates without proper authorization from Parliament.

That violated “an ancient but fundamental principle of our democratic system,” wrote Mr. Justice Louis LeBel on behalf of the unanimous court.

“According to that principle, a tax can be imposed only by Parliament or a clearly authorized delegate of Parliament.”

The finding means that, in effect, EI contributions were collected illegally for the three years in question. It's not clear, however, what legal impact that has in the here and now.

It could theoretically give rise to civil litigation demanding that the premiums be refunded. Or Parliament could, again in theory, consider passing retroactive legislation to legalize the past actions.

You guys just LOVE Quebec labour unions don't you? Seems you were laughing about that bit of depressing a seperatists reporter and of course just LOVE unions in general.

Seems you don't mind this particular Quebec unions actions eh?

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX 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.

A little bit of the usual post and run you claim i do. The original post in this article came was that they Supreme Court found the Liberal party has been found guilty of breaking the law. You late chimed in defending what they did. People asked you a very simple question as to whether you thought they did the fight thing

you later said

$1:

The Liberals did great.

People have been asking you to defend that position in light of the guilty verdict. and yet now you will only defend your position if people anser your questions first? Why is it your so afraid of answering a simple question in the first place. You been dodging the issue in a attempt to deflect the threa onto another course and I'm here to remind you about the original question about the Guilty verdict made gasint the Liberal party in their latest EI scandal.

It's a tired forum method of evading a question of saying 'you have to answer my questions first' Unfortuntely for you the original question which you answered in knee-jerk method you now refuse to back up. You claim they did great ,the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you, that is unless you defend the idea that it's okay to break the law as long as the intent was good?

Tht is the central issue here, and once again unfortunately it isn't some random blogger commnenting of the Libral Party, but the Supreme Court which has found your party of illegal activity. Still you are trying to defend them by obscuring the issue at hand....

It's seems that your moral compass is a little skewed, do you know that difference between right and wrong. Do you believe that people who cimmit crimes and found guilty in a court of law, are in fact, guilty. Because it seems that you have a disconnect between thos two poalr opposites of legal and illegal

So once again, did the Liberal Party break they law

I dont think you'll ever answer the question now, but it merely highlights the fear you have accepting truth and udnermines your own personal view of morals and justice. But those of us who do know such things neverhteless have a duty to point out in public the 'fence sitters' amongst us

[DerbyX]

Nope. You have it on record what I said. Its you who won't answer because you either contradict yourself or admit you were wrong.

Despite all the above garbage it still stands.

ANSWER THESE 4 QUESTIONS AND YOU WILL GET A COMPLETE ANSWER:

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?

Thats it sunshine. Your move. All you have to do is answer those 4 questions and I'll have no choice but to answer. If I don't then my unwillingness to answer after wearing I would will be thrown back in my face at each and every opportunity.

In fact I bet some people are just begging you to answer so I'll have to.

Your move sunshine. Answer up and I will.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Nope. You have it on record what I said. Its you who won't answer because you either contradict yourself or admit you were wrong.

Despite all the above garbage it still stands.

ANSWER THESE 4 QUESTIONS AND YOU WILL GET A COMPLETE ANSWER:

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?

Thats it sunshine. Your move. All you have to do is answer those 4 questions and I'll have no choice but to answer. If I don't then my unwillingness to answer after wearing I would will be thrown back in my face at each and every opportunity.

In fact I bet some people are just begging you to answer so I'll have to.

Your move sunshine. Answer up and I will.

Why are you so afraid of answering.

You often come here proclaiming the truth. You're already showing an unwllingness to answer to original a question about the issue at hand.Have you that much fear of explaining yourself and your original satement

$1:

The Liberals did great.

It's a question of ethics and one that you claim to be a proud owner of.

Did the Liberal Party break the law, the Surpeme Court foudn them guilty. and you defened them. How did you come to the cconlucion that by breaking the law, they did "great"

[DerbyX]

I have already answered. You are running from my questions because you know damn well you can't support the courts condemning the Liberals over the EI fund yet reject them over adscam.

You can't say the Libs were wrong using the EI fund without acknowledging Harper was wrong.

You can't admit you were wrong saying they illegally balanced the budget even when proven completely wrong.

You are just running away.

Answer my questions and you'll get your answers and not a moment before.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I have already answered. You are running from my questions because you know damn well you can't support the courts condemning the Liberals over the EI fund yet reject them over adscam.

You can't say the Libs were wrong using the EI fund without acknowledging Harper was wrong.

You can't admit you were wrong saying they illegally balanced the budget even when proven completely wrong.

You are just running away.

Answer my questions and you'll get your answers and not a moment before.

Really


The only thing ive seen is

$1:

The Liberals did great

So what is your legal justification for this? Considering the Supreme court has foudn them guilty that seems to fly in the face of common sense. And considering the original topic was and is about the Liberal Party, now that your a member of that said party why is it you refuse to explaing they did the right thing by breaking the law

Thw question at hand here is whether you think they were right in breaking the law. that they've been found guilty in a court of law it's more than a little suspicious that you're are trying to defend them without really appearing to dfend them

So , did they break the law in your view or not?

[DerbyX]

All you have to do is answer my questions. Thats all sunshine.

Answer my questions and you'll get your answer.

I've had enough of this. You have my challenge and we can keep going on like this all day.

I've set the conditions for me to answer your question in detail.

All you have to do is show some integrity and answer my questions.

You answer first then I will answer.

Your move sunshine.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

All you have to do is answer my questions. Thats all sunshine.


I've set the conditions for me to answer your question in detail.

.

Your move sunshine.

Since when is there a condition on explaining your morals, do you have any?

[uwish]

How about I take a crack at these:

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

why was he wrong? when he did this he was the 'official opposition'. As per the role it is the oppositions duty to howl and whine. We are seeing the same thing now with the Liberals. That is one of the things I really do not like about our system. The opposition shouldn't oppose to oppose. If it is truly good for the country, vote for it! support it! That doesn't mean you are 'weak'.

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

I think that depends on interpretation and when they failed to notify parliament of changes.

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

no



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

ok I do. But that doesn't mean they didn't know about it and they simply turned a blinds eye. The captain goes down with his ship does he not? just because they were not found 'legally' responsible does not absolve them of this as it happened under their watch.

It does show just how desperate the liberal party is AND outlines some pretty startling systemic issues within the party.

As a guy from Saskatchewan during the Devine years I KNOW HOW THIS STINKS. Nearly ALL of his former ministers ended up in JAIL for the corruption under his watch. Yet he walks around freely, never being pinned for what happened. Just because his was not found legally at fault, do you really believe he had NO KNOWLEDGE of what was going on?

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, at least the Liberals had a pretty good economic record and were paying down the debt. Harper's been in for two years and the economy is crap now. Oh, I know, I know, it's not poor Stevie's fault. It's everybody else's fault.

Remember, everything is the Liberals fault.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

uwish uwish:

I think it is a bit of a stretch linking Harper to the worlds economic issues.

A monkey could be in the PM's office and the same thing would have happened.

Of course it's a stretch--for you. The problem with the Conservatives is that they've been in Opposition too long. In opposition, you always blame the other party for everything that's going wrong. When you're actually IN power, it's no longer any good to just slam the Oppostion. You have to govern. And you have to take responsibility for you governing.

All I know is that under the Liberals we have had over a decade of fiscal responsibility, surpluses and economic prosperity. Conservatives get back in, and down the toilet it goes.

Global economic woes? Sure. But he was also sitting around figuring how to increase his power instead of dealing with the critical issue at hand--the economy. Again, that's something you expect from teh Opposition, not from teh government.

Harper's been in power a while now. We still have th gun registry, murderers walk in five years, the senate is unelected and he's just run away and suspended Parliament. Lame. Duck. Leader.

And this EI business is just not going to stick. The mainstream media don't seem interested, even if the partisan blogosphere is.

[HyperionTheEvil]

$1:

And this EI business is just not going to stick. The mainstream media don't seem interested, even if the partisan blogosphere is

Wait for the election son, i gaurantee you this will be in play. Two liberal EI scandals.\, and with liberals in denial , it's perfect for the conservatives.

[DerbyX]

See, a fair answer. Whats the matter starcraft? Is that too much to ask of you?

Now I think we have given the forum quite enough entertainment for today. Assuming there is anybody left reading this thread who isn't saying to themselves what a couple of idiots we both are they are entitled to at least a response from me when my questions have been answered.

I'll just assume that starcraft is a giant hypocrite because he won't admit that he won't accept the courts ruling on Chretien or Martin while demanding complete acceptance of their ruling about the EI.

1) Yes the opposition often takes the term "opposition" to literally. It still doesn't change the fact that Harper became a giant hypocrite by doing exactly what decried the Libs were and what he said he wouldn't.

Thats the definition of hypocrite actually.

2) "I think that depends on interpretation and when they failed to notify parliament of changes. "

The supreme court told us when, 2002, 2003, and 2005. They did so in every other year since making changes in 96. For reference I listed the maxmimum employee premium from 93 to the expected 2009. They were all calculated by a set formula as detailed here.

So yes, the Liberals did indeed break the laws on the above 3 years by not properly informing parliament of its intention to change the rate. Thats not the whole story though. I question the use of the term "ancient" in the decision. "an ancient but fundamental principle of our democratic system". That sounds like something you say by charging the four seasons with a crime for not feeding and stabling your horse.

No taxation without representation? Does that mean the govt isn't allowed to charge us tax until Jan 26?

In addition you need to appreciate the scope. Did they break the law? Yes. Did they go around our back and slap an illegal surtax (on tea) on us? Nope. They failed to correctly inform parliament that they were going to adjust the premium downward.

3) fair enough.

4) I think Harper knew full well about the bribe attempt on Cadman. He should go down with that. What about the secret documents that Benier left at his GFs? Secret NATO documents. Bernier resigned because of that yet it happened under Harpers watch. Why isn't he being held responsible?

It works both ways doesn't it.

You will bend over backwards to excuse the CPC its transgressions while doing the opposite for the Liberals.

Do you honestly expect anything other then treatment in kind?

Despite our animosity at least I can be man enough to thank you for an honest answer. Thats all I wanted.

[Zipperfish]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

$1:

And this EI business is just not going to stick. The mainstream media don't seem interested, even if the partisan blogosphere is

Wait for the election son, i gaurantee you this will be in play. Two liberal EI scandals.\, and with liberals in denial , it's perfect for the conservatives.

I guess we'll see soon enough. I haven't seen much of it on the news. I think people will be more focussed on the immediate financial situation.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

So yes, the Liberals did indeed break the laws on the above 3 years by not properly informing parliament of its intention to change the rate.

Glad to finally see you confess , that your party has been found guilty in breaking our countries laws

which still flies in the face of

$1:

The liberals did great

You still have a serious discinnect though, you agree that they are guilty and sill claim they did great.

[DerbyX]

I told you guys he was too much of a coward to answer.