If Canada can send a naturalized Canadian back to Jamaica, Scotland etc why would England not just return Lordy back to Canada?
|
|
|
One insurance fraudster down, few hundred to go...
- Thread starter dr_sarcasm
- Start date
If Canada can send a naturalized Canadian back to Jamaica, Scotland etc why would England not just return Lordy back to Canada?
OpenGambit
Banned
I still don't see what that has to do with anything, you don' thave to throw in your hate of the conservative government in every thread man.
you suggested that 'no one is welcoming him with open arms'. . .i disagreed, and stated why. my view on this can be completely independent of politics.
maybe it has more to do with him being an unrepentant d-bag who stole millions and ruined peoples' lives doing it. a d-bag that couldn't care less about canada when he turned his back on the country in 2001, and now suddenly feels patriotic? why is anyone helping make his life easier?
we are talking about two d-bags who committed similar crimes. if we deport one to sri lanka, then surely the other one should be deported too, regardless of who runs the government.
but is england actually sending him back? or are we putting out the welcome back mat for him? there's a difference there, imho.
Has *any* GTAM member expressed *any* desire for Conrad Black to return to Canada?
If not, what the heck does this argument have to do with some GTAM members wanting to deport this insurance fraud felon?
If not, what the heck does this argument have to do with some GTAM members wanting to deport this insurance fraud felon?
A hypothetical question on my part. To get his Lordly title he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship. That doesn't change the fact that he was born here. If a country wants to extradite someone that wasn't born on their turf how does that go?
I'm sure that many people we extradite aren't wanted by their birth nations either. What if they say "No thanks, you keep them. No refunds or exchanges"
RE Conrad Black, as long as what he does, doesn't bother me, I don't really care where he lives. I'm sure in England it's "Conrad Who???"
hey, why don't you read my posts again? maybe that'll stop you from putting words in my mouth (figuratively speaking). where have i suggested that gtam members specifically have expressed any desires, period?
someone here wrote that the sri lankan criminal should be deported. i suggested if we are going to be deporting convicted thieves, then logically, we should be deporting this other criminal (but we aren't) too. imho, there is a logical connection between them.
if we aren't going to deport one, then why should we deport the sri lankan dude?
see the logical connection? my posts have been about the treatment of two similar cases, imho, and how our reactions seem to be different.
if you think this is all about conrad black, then you are mistaken. there is context, and i have clearly framed it--if you choose to ignore that, that's not up to me, is it?
or do you really think everything happens in a vaccuum?
iirc, re: terminology, extradition implies that the person is actually wanted by the receiving country to face criminal charges.
both with the sri lankan dude and the brit, this would not be the case. deporting them would essentially be expulsion, and whatever residency rights they would enjoy in their actual country as citizens would determine whether they could stay there or be refused entry.
this example is complicated by the fact that the 'sri lankan' dude is most likely a canadian citizen now, and last time i checked, mobility rights apply once his sentence is served. plenty of canadian criminals relocate around the country once they have paid their debt to society. meanwhile, the brit should/does not enjoy the same citizen rights by dint of not being a canadian citizen.
if indeed the insurance thief never attained citizenship status in canada, then all bets are off. but no one, including the poster who suggested that the dude be deported, has shown any indication that this is the case.
Conrad black took money from a corporation he built with the blessing of the board of directors. He then spent 4 years in jail paid money back and his convictions were all overturned on appeal except for obstruction of justice. He was born in Canada and his crimes were non violent and it did not hurt the public. He wasn't a Bernie madoff. The Sri lankan dude hurt the public physically and financially and didn't get as long a sentence as black did and yes he should be deported. He will more than likely hurt the public in the future whereas black will most likely not. But afong56 doesn't like white people, rich people, Christians or conservatives so will disagree with everything as usual and say we don't know him at all.
You can be as condescending in your posts as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you've derailed a thread by creating an argument out of nothing. You're trying to draw a "logical connection" between "our responses" to these two situations? Well create a thread about Conrad Black and maybe find out. The responses may surprise you, even from white GTAM members!
Now go ahead and write a few more paragraphs accusing me of not knowing how to read and arguing your same crap over 'n over.
My bad. I meant deportation to a country that didn't want the bad boy back. Black has a year to get his act together before off to the UK I guess.
If Obama loses the presidency he might be encouraged to give CB a pardon in the lame duck transition. Who knows? Who cares?
I'm as pasty white as they come, used to work 300 feet from Conrad Black's office, and I don't want him anywhere near my country...
remind us all why you got banned?
could it be the lies and insults in your posts?
have never reported a post before, but now have been told specifically by paul in pm to do so.
his forum, so his rules.
grow up.
you don't see the connection. fine.
you don't have to read my posts then.
p.s. guess who's back to drag this thread down and even further off topic (since you apparently care about how 'off-topic' it is)
p.p.s. your posts lamenting how off-topic my posts are, make this thread even further off-topic. . .just saying.
Last edited:
I suggest that you review "Lord" Black's actual crimes, if this is what you think. Even if you credit him with all of the crimes that he was charged with, even the ones for which his convictions were overturned, what he did doesn't rise to the level that you've stated here unless, of course, you include the lives of Black and his co-conspirators in your 'ruined lives' statement.
With that said, however, I am not one of those people who would welcome him back with open arms. He renounced his Canadian citizenship, for personal gain. What comes with profit, also frequently comes at a cost. In this case, the cost appears to have been set aside.
Unfortunately what those bastards did was almost exclusively legal. They played by the rules, that were poorly written to start with. That's why finding after finding states that no crime was committed. The law didn't state that they couldn't derive funds from the funds that were derived, from the projected profits, of negative equity loans. When looked at in the cold light of reason, it seems like a monumentally stupid concept, expecting profits from loans that are designed to lose money, and yet the American government had done nothing to curtail the practise. Those who bought these bogus financial instruments didn't look very deeply into them, either. Greed has a way of putting blinders on people.
i have looked at them. contrary to what other un-informed posters have stated here, he remains convicted and guilty of both fraud and obstruction. the fraud charge is connected to the illegal siphoning of millions of dollars through non-competes that he knowingly pocketed with his buddies.
i stand behind my comments. he is a convicted thief, stole millions from shareholders, and ruined lives.
Then you are incorrect, unless you can point to the 'lives ruined.' Reducing the overall profits of a company does not, by default, ruin lives. As I stated, the only lives 'ruined' were those of Black, and his co-conspirators. The remaining obstruct justice charge pertains to his removal of papers from his office at Hollinger, contrary to court order, and a mail fraud charge, that pertains to the sum of $600,000.00. He was either found not guilty of all other charges, or they were vacated in 2010.
Amplifying does no one good. Simply state the facts.
those are facts.
is he a convicted thief? yes.
did millions of dollars get stolen from shareholders in the form of non-compete fees that went in his and his buddies' pockets instead of back to the company where they should have? yes.
were lives ruined? yes.
what exactly have i amplified?
#1 - Convicted of "mail fraud", not theft, but I'll give you that one. Close enough.
#2 - Apparently it could only be substantiated or upheld, in court, that he (conceding your first point) 'stole' $600,000.00.
#3 - You are presuming that lives have been 'ruined', while presenting no support for that claim. Supposition is not fact.
.... therefore, you are amplifying in two out of three claims. You are also wrong about the first but, as it's a technical issue rather than a substantive one, I'm giving you that point.
|
|
|
|
|