Not content with hideously misrepresenting blogger Jeff "BCer in TO" Jedras, then defaming Liberal MP Dan McTeague to the point where McTeague gives him a sound spanking, Blogging Tory "Paul" demonstrates that he has learned nothing as he whips out his dick and slaps it down on the table, yammering on about how it's just not fair that other people get to be irresponsible:
"Conservatives: Our principles do not apply to us."
Really? McTeague felt the post was unfair, because even though the campaign literature had indeed contained incorrect info, the lawsuit launched against him was dismissed. And while the person who pursued the lawsuit against McTeague seems to have a personal vendetta, the fact remains that Jaffer was only convicted of careless driving. And yet McTeagues Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession.
Liberals, our principles are lower than the other guys, so don't complain about us.
Let us try (in vain, I'm guessing) to educate Paul on the absurdity of this claim of his:
And yet McTeagues Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession.
They have done no such thing, Paul. Rather, they have simply pointed out what seems to be an undeniable fact -- that Jaffer had cocaine on him when he was stopped.
"But wait," you screech (incredibly stupidly, I might add), "that charge was dropped!!1!!!1!" Why, yes, it was, and for a number of possible reasons, including:
A rookie Ontario Provincial Police officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer, 38, causing the Crown to conclude the case would be open to a Charter challenge, the Star has learned. While the OPP opposed Jaffer only being charged with careless driving, the Crown took a steadfast position, sources say.
In short, improprieties during the bust made the Crown think that it would be difficult to make that charge stick, so the Crown reluctantly let it slide. But (and here's the tricky part, Paul, so pay attention) the dropping of the charge did not make the cocaine magically disappear. In fact, no one is denying that there was cocaine. Jaffer beat the rap on a technicality, which in no way allows him to now claim that the cocaine was never there.
See how that works, Paul? At this point, Rahim Jaffer can -- quite accurately -- claim that he has never been convicted of possession of cocaine, because he hasn't been. Conversely, though, the rest of us -- based on all of the reporting available to us -- can safely state that Jaffer was in possession of cocaine when he was pulled over.
No one need "convict" Jaffer of anything, Paul. We need simply observe that all of the evidence suggests that he had coke in his car when he was stopped. That's not a legal argument, Paul. It's just an observation. And it involves no hypocrisy whatsoever.
Sadly, only people who are not truly stupid will understand the distinction.
JESUS, MARY, MOTHER OF GOD: Paul is still yammering on in his comments section, utterly unable to understand the simple concept I'm explaining here. Somehow, the word "stupid" seems sadly inadequate.
Another day, another BT putting their complete and utter ignorance and stupidity on display.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it?
Hmmm. Paul needs to have "null hypothesis" and "alternative hypothesis" explained to him.
Oh right. You've done that twice already.
Paul is indeed, stupid.
I still don't see how you can fuck up a strip search. The only plausible problem to me is that the coke was found in the car and the crown cannot prove Jaffer knew it was there — cuz how's he to know someone else, who had access to his car, left her coke in his car? Which would mean he's innocent of the coke thing but raises another problem about the guilt of an unformer MP
Heh! Seer, you are bad! :)
Just left a comment at Paul's pit, however, since he has comment moderation on, odds of it seeing the light of day over there are less than likely. Sooo....
"Paul, your position would be that Rapudamin Singh Malik was not one of the Air India bombers and that a jury found him "innocent" of the charges against him."
The classic Null Hypothesis result.
I do love the hypocrisy of Canada's "Free Speech" militia being such relentless censors in their own moderated comments sections.
OK. Credit where due. Paul allowed my comment.
I guess Paul fully supports Karla Homolka's deal, and would soundly criticize anyone who suggests that she got off easy?
Love the spin: Criticize Jaffer's deal, and you're convicting him of criminal acts.
This is why trials are effective. They tend to settle controversial matters.
The Crown was in error here. Te more public a person's life is, the more need there is for open and thorough process. Justice must not just be done, it must be seen to be done.
Post a Comment