• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Eli
    November 05, 2012 - 12:15

    Wasn't Senator John Buchanan (PC-NS) appointed just as the sheriff was about to knock on HIS door. This whole story brings to light Danny Williams' assurance of openess & accountabliity? Duh!

  • Politically Incorrect
    October 30, 2012 - 12:20

    Pacific Scandal

  • Politically incorrect
    October 30, 2012 - 10:44

    Don't you Tory apologists get tired of having to defend your Dear Leader on the strenght of "well, the Liberals did it first" and "you just like him better." In the words of my father from the front seat of his Ford Escort, "Stop your whining back there or I'm turning this *$^#! car around and no one gets ice cream."

    • david
      October 30, 2012 - 11:03

      The Liberals didn't "do it forst"...they invented it, perfected it over 50 years, and are seething that they aren't still there doing more of it. Tory apologist I'm not....I'm just an observant, awake person.

  • Lawyerman
    October 30, 2012 - 10:34

    Your Honour: These charges of robbery against my client must be dropped because that bank he is charged with holding-up was held-up seven years earlier by another robber. By charging my client, the Court is complicit in the previous robbery. Indeed, even by discussing the robbery with which my client has been charged without focussing on all pervious robberies demonstrates the Court’s hatred for my client. Furthermore, I charge that Your Honour, the Court, the Prosecution, the Jury, and everyone else in this room will also rob this bank and therefore, my client is not guilty. Besides, we don’t recognise the legitimacy of any court that does not rule on my client’s behalf.

    • david
      October 30, 2012 - 11:08

      Your objection is noted. But I would ask defense counsel to explain why the previous robbery was never investigated or pursued at that time. I see no police report, no investigation, and no trial...it would seem that the accused in this case has reasoinable grounds to claim that a legal precedent for dismissal has been firmly established.

  • David
    October 30, 2012 - 08:43

    FYI: Ethics is every opposition's strong suit. They don't get the opportunity to dip their own beaks, so they make a pretty big scene when they can ---- rooted in pure envy, truth be told. But I guess that this seething hatred for Harper is so strong that it actually has 'woken' up the Telegram to all kinds of previously acceptable Liberal pork and corruption. Let''s hope they remember the concept when the next bunch get in and start slobbering around in the trough......they show a real zeal for it now.