Question, Can the Conservatives Prove they didn't use 10 percenters and Paid Mailings to build a Fundraising Database?
Around this time last year one hot topic in the House of Commons was the notion of paid mailings and franking privileges. John Reynolds stood up in the House and expressed his concern for a franked piece of mail that arrived in his riding from a Liberal M.P. His concern centred around the envelope, stationary and delivery, and how much tax dollars were used regarding it? Although he made some vaild points, the entire issue would question Parliamentary franking and stationary privileges altogether. As it stands, an M.P. can deliver mail to anywhere in the country free of charge. During this time many of us remember receiving in the mail cards from Conservative M.P.s asking if we were opposed to the current Liberal Government, and then if we were, would we please foward our contact information to them. The pieces had a franking label in a very small font. I am wondering if I sent in that card, would I have received another letter from the party asking to donate?
No one is denying the Conservatives ability to fundraise. The old Progressive Conservatives prior to 1993 were very successful fundraisers, even during their lean years. Franking privileges and paid mailings are paid for by taxpayers. Where tax dollars used to fundraise for the Conservatives? Better yet, can the party prove that they were able to build a database by other means?
posted by player_hater @ 9:06 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Question, Can you and/or the Liberals prove that they did? Thought not.....
Innocence before proven guilty. Or does that only apply to Muslims accused or Terrorism?
I love it anonymous.
If it is someone you don't like, such as Muslims accused of terrorists activities or Liberals (Remember how you guys pronounced the Liberals guilty in the Income Trust Affair) then you presume guilt.
Someone questions whether there might have been wrongdoing on the part of the Conservatives you are all over the innocent until proven guilty defence.
That my friend is the definition of hypocracy or maybe you just do not understand the "innocence until proven guilty" principle in which case you have kindly demonstrated to us the meaning of ignorance. Either way you have done us a service and I for one thank you.
BTW, I agree with you. The Conservatives are innocent until proven guilty and the speculation of this post is by no means even close to that proof. Although, the post does ask an interesting question and I wonder if you will ask for an investigation into what could have been a serious breach of the rules governing the use of public money for partisan purposes. I know if this question was asked of the Liberals you would be demanding an investigation forthwith. Are you going to be consistant and demand the same in this case?
Don't bother responding because I already know the answer.
http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=18309
"There are forces in the United States that look with glee on the prospect that Canada will become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American right wing.
“Some of the same advisors and media magicians who have been behind the catastrophe of Bush and [Dick] Cheney are now hard at work to bring Canada, obsequiously and subserviently, into the right-wing fold, to do whatever Bush and Cheney want them to do. I am a non-Canadian, so I don’t have the authority to speak to this. But my guess is that the Canadian people are not going to go along with that….I hope that Canada continues to follow its own path and does not allow a minority government to make it a junior partner to the Bush gang.”
Al Gore on Canada
-WV
If it is someone you don't like, such as Muslims accused of terrorists activities or Liberals (Remember how you guys pronounced the Liberals guilty in the Income Trust Affair) then you presume guilt.
I didn't presume ANYTHING. The point was nobody is exempt from being innocent until proven guilty. However, hearing how most of the left I've seen squeal, those on the right have already said those accused were guilty before any kind of trial. That is utter bullshit.
Someone questions whether there might have been wrongdoing on the part of the Conservatives you are all over the innocent until proven guilty defence.
That defense is supposed to work for everyone. And that was the central point to my original post.
That my friend is the definition of hypocracy.
Spoken as a matter of convenience.
Maybe you just do not understand the "innocence until proven guilty" principle in which case you have kindly demonstrated to us the meaning of ignorance.
I just said its supposed to work for everyone. Ignorance, thy name is Ottlib.
Either way you have done us a service and I for one thank you.
Don't forget to tip your waitress on the way out.
Although, the post does ask an interesting question and I wonder if you will ask for an investigation into what could have been a serious breach of the rules governing the use of public money for partisan purposes.
I would ask for an investigation in any matter like this. However, saying "better yet, can the party prove that they were able to build a database by other means?" doesn't matter if we believe people are innocent before proven otherwise.
I know if this question was asked of the Liberals you would be demanding an investigation forthwith. Are you going to be consistant and demand the same in this case?
Of course. It works both ways.
Don't bother responding because I already know the answer.
Then why did you ask the question? Oh, I know, you can't handle the answer.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home