[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yep, that makes it all better.

Call the media, let them know the case is closed.

Of all the groups who paid for JT to speak, how many actually want a refund? Any? Nope, because no one cares except the PMO and the Conservative media attack dog.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yep, that makes it all better.

Call the media, let them know the case is closed.

Of all the groups who paid for JT to speak, how many actually want a refund? Any? Nope, because no one cares except the PMO and the Conservative media attack dog.

Yea, nobody cares.

A complete non-story. I'll call the media to let them know.

[raydan]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yep, that makes it all better.

Call the media, let them know the case is closed.

Of all the groups who paid for JT to speak, how many actually want a refund? Any? Nope, because no one cares except the PMO and the Conservative media attack dog.

Yea, nobody cares.

A complete non-story. I'll call the media to let them know.

It took you a while but you finally got it.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And because the Trudeau story is in the media, it's on the radar of Canadians? What's your point? Why one and not the other?

It's another cynical attack that has blown up in their faces. Rightly so.

You'd like us to believe that the channel has been changed and that the focus is now on how the story got released to the media. You can't be that naive.

I wouldn't have you believe anything. I provided evidence that over half a dozen major news outlets are running stories on how this scandal got traced back to the PMO.

To me, it's a sign that people are fed up with the cynicism. It's not great that Trudeau weas charging charities to speak as an MP, but it's not the scandal to end all scandals either. The Conservatives overplayed it.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yep, that makes it all better.

Call the media, let them know the case is closed.

Of all the groups who paid for JT to speak, how many actually want a refund? Any? Nope, because no one cares except the PMO and the Conservative media attack dog.

Yea, nobody cares.

A complete non-story. I'll call the media to let them know.

Here's the top few hits on Google News for Trudeau right now:

National Post: Harper mum on PMO's role in spreading Trudeau charity fee documents to media

Montreal gazette: Trudeau pledges to repay charities

Calgary Herald: Harper faces questions over partisan activities at PMO

Calgary Herald: Tory attacks on Trudeau boomerang, raise questions about PMO involvement

Clear, not a "non-story" but not exactly the story the Conservatives were hoping for.

[FieryVulpine]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Because it's a story boots! Tell me how it should work....how long should anyone who supports the Conservative Party to report current news on an existing scandal involving anything remotely Liberal?

1 week? 2 weeks? Never?

You might have a point here. Justin Trudeau (or his office, whichever) did release a list of his speaking engagements over the past five or so years this past February along with the fees charged for each one to Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen. What I do find interesting is this little nugget.

$1:

March 5, 2010 – Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union. $20,000

From what I recall, Justin Trudeau opposes Bill C-377, which calls for greater transparency from unions and he accepted money from a union for a speaking engagement. I sense a potential conflict of interest here though not an incredibly explicit one. It leaves me to wonder why no intrepid journalist asked Mr. Trudeau such a question four months ago. There is definitely a possibility that the majority of the media outlets chose to ignore or bury this story because of a fundamental bias towards him. After all, he is telegenic and has the Trudeau name, which is popular with the Boomers of the Laurentian consensus who feel nostalgic for the original Trudeaumania of the sixties.

Interestingly enough, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union may ask for its money back as well.

[bootlegga]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

JJ2424 and anyone else who is so terrified of feedback that they turn off their rating points.

I find it somewhat interesting that 90% of those with it turned off lean to the right...guess they just can't stand the heat in the kitchen!

[2Cdo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

JJ2424 and anyone else who is so terrified of feedback that they turn off their rating points.

I find it somewhat interesting that 90% of those with it turned off lean to the right...guess they just can't stand the heat in the kitchen!

Or maybe they fear the natural vindictiveness of the left.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, it most definitely is.

Who mentioned this in the Question Period? The Conservatives. Who does the board member support? The Conservatives. This is ALL deflection by them. The NDP only jumped on it because they thought it might knock some wind out of JT's sails and put them back in second place in the polls.

Both the NDP and Conservatives mentioned it in the House. The board member does not support the conservatives, her spouse does. You keep focusing on the board and their political affiliations yet you ignore that they agreed to pay Justin $20,000....so your bias theory is out the window.

Face it boots....it's a big story. You may see it as a deflection from a story that's not even front page news anymore which is fine, but you cannot deny this is a story worth discussing.

If it's such a big story, why has no one said anything about the 150 or so other MPs earning extra income from corporations, rental properties, drawing pension payouts, etc.?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1390522/

That's from 2010 - well before the last election. Yet nobody even noticed that article. Why, now all of a sudden is it a 'scandal'?

It's not - and here's why;

$1:

While there are some restrictions for cabinet ministers, MPs are allowed to hold as many outside jobs and own as many companies as they like.

Unlike the United Kingdom, there is no requirement for MPs to publicly disclose how much they earn from outside interests, just whether they earned more than $10,000. Nor do they have to disclose how many hours they spend on those outside jobs.

The only restriction is that they can't use their parliamentary office or their position as an MP to benefit their private businesses.

Some question the practice, saying MPs are well paid and expected to perform a full-time job. Others suggest it would be hard to attract candidates if MPs had to ditch their professions and businesses, leaving them nothing to fall back on should they lose an election.

As long as they do it outside of work hours, I don't really care, just like I don't care about the half of Parliament that earns money on the side while they sit in office.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Look at your own recent posting history. When the Duffy/Wallin thing exploded, what did you do? Post an article on Mac Harb, then admit you felt that his part in the scandal had been glossed over and you were just 'bringing it to light' for the rest of us. Your own partisanship here is nothing more than a blatant copy of Conservative Party strategy, but hey, whatever.

Because it's a story boots! Tell me how it should work....how long should anyone who supports the Conservative Party to report current news on an existing scandal involving anything remotely Liberal?

1 week? 2 weeks? Never?

My guess is never....even if Harb was mentioned a year from now, you and the rest of the lefties would be crying deflection because crying deflection is just a deflection of your own.

If any Liberal gets caught tomorrow in a corruption scandal, I will ensure to wait 2-3 months before mentioning it. I don't want to worry you and the rest of the Liberals will be crying "deflection".

That'd be par for the course at least.

Lord knows you haven't said a peep about Jacques Demers or Larry Smith or Pamela Wallin or Mike Duffy - CONSERVATIVE senators who are doing exactly the same thing (charging for public appearances and speeches) you are castigating Justin Trudeau for.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/06/ ... -to-speak/

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/06/ ... ng-events/

But that's okay - at least you are consistent in your partisanship!

For the record, I could have made hay with these links, posting them and commenting on them to get reactions from people (like you did), but I never even bothered to see if they were posted here on CKA.

Why? Because, as I've said several times, I don't care if any MP or Senator earns something on the side, as long as it's legal and outside of working hours.

[bootlegga]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

JJ2424 and anyone else who is so terrified of feedback that they turn off their rating points.

I find it somewhat interesting that 90% of those with it turned off lean to the right...guess they just can't stand the heat in the kitchen!

Or maybe they fear the natural vindictiveness of the left.

That's a total copout - almost every single 'neg rep' I've gotten has been from right wingers like Bart Simpson, Martin, etc., while my positive rep comes from BOTH sides of the spectrum.

[raydan]

bootlegga bootlegga:

That's a total copout - almost every single 'neg rep' I've gotten has been from right wingers like Bart Simpson, Martin, etc., while my positive rep comes from BOTH sides of the spectrum.

I'm not sure, was Manifest Destiny left or right?

[Zipperfish]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

JJ2424 and anyone else who is so terrified of feedback that they turn off their rating points.

I find it somewhat interesting that 90% of those with it turned off lean to the right...guess they just can't stand the heat in the kitchen!

Or maybe they fear the natural vindictiveness of the left.

And for that you got my second ever neg rep. And my first in probably five years.

[2Cdo]

Well it looks like at least 2 people missed the smiley.

[raydan]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Well it looks like at least 2 people missed the smiley.

I chose to ignore... not the same.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

If it's such a big story, why has no one said anything about the 150 or so other MPs earning extra income from corporations, rental properties, drawing pension payouts, etc.?

What a facepalm.

How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in? This isn't about having a extra job, it's about charging people, charities and unions, money to do a job you're already paid to do.

I don't care if your Conservative, Liberal or NDP MP, charging charities and the like money to come speak and support an event is bullshit in my eyes. I don't care about your politics. My position on that has always been the same

bootlegga bootlegga:

Lord knows you haven't said a peep about Jacques Demers or Larry Smith or Pamela Wallin or Mike Duffy - CONSERVATIVE senators who are doing exactly the same thing (charging for public appearances and speeches) you are castigating Justin Trudeau for.

Now you're making up things to support your partisan position.

Have I supported them? No. Have a said numerous times that I don't support a politician of any stripe doing this? Yes.

Enough with the fiction. Do you need me to repeat that all again or is 2-3 times enough?