Friday, February 29, 2008

Blogging Tories stupid, Chuck Cadman edition.

First, let's have Dave make a critically important observation:

Cadman's survivor benefit, unless I have this mistaken, would have been approximately 2 years annual salary as a member of parliament. That would make a $1 million offer more - much more.

And, by way of contrast, let's check in on a typically retarded member of Stephen Taylor's Blogging Tories:

If the insurance policy was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election" then it's an absolute non-issue. The Opposition should drop it immediately and get back to opposing.

If the policy was discussed as part of incentives to sway Cadman's vote then that's a criminal act and the RCMP should be involved immediately.

OK, Mark, let's try to connect the dots, then, shall we? Dave managed to do it, so can you. Come on ... it's not hard, you can do it. Which of those two possibilities seems to be supported by all the evidence?

Frankly, sometimes I'm not sure why I bother.

: BT Mike Brock tries to do nuance, and gets hammered in his own comments section. Not surprisingly, he doesn't take it well.


Ti-Guy said...

I really have a hard time following Conservative thought processes. It usually starts off with something lacking any credible evidence and then spins off into wilder and wilder speculation.

With minds like that, I'm surprised anything ever actualises for them at the quantum level.

The Seer said...

Query: Can a life insurance policy be voided on the basis of fraud?

If you know you're going to die when you take out the policy, and you die within a few months of issuance from a fatal condition that existed when the policy was purchased, does the insurance company have a right to deny payment?

Either the alleged bribers didn't think of these issues, or they tried to con Cadman or there's an insurance company in on the bribery.

I don't know what's worse.

KEvron said...

"does the insurance company have a right to deny payment?"

if they had stipulated a medical exam prior to issuance, and that exam had been compromised, then yes. in some cases, though, terms are negotiable.


liberal supporter said...

I'm sure there would be a medical exam requirement in the fine print.

You don't think the CPC would actually want to be required to make good on their offer, once they secured Cadman's vote, do you?

But BT logic would say that makes it ok to offer something. Even though it would fall through, they could shriek "not my fault" as they always do.