Follow new updates daily on Twitter:

Thursday, April 5, 2012

A thief isn't a thief when caught in the act?

The rule used to be that being caught in the act of preparing to commit a crime or a general evil deed was enough to be considered in violation of either the law or the moral foundations of society. Apparently, not anymore. The number of times that the Tories have now claimed innocence in the whole F-35 controversy because "no money was misspent" (yet) indicates that this fact is considered to be a major extenuating circumstance, at least by themselves. To me, this seems as ridiculous as a would-be assassin let go only because their victim was not killed, but only gravely wounded, thus they did not achieve their criminal goal and cannot be considered true criminals. If someone puts together a money laundering scheme or a system of blackmail and extortion, that is already considered a crime, even if "no money had been laundered or extorted" (yet). The top officials in our country were obviously in the know about the slight miscalculation of the price of those jets amounting to as much as $10 billion. This deal had been in the making for months and even years, and just because "no money was misspent" (yet), Harper, MacKay and the rest of the gang do not become these innocent bystanders wrongfully accused of heinous crimes. A thief is a thief, a crook is a crook, and a corrupt and un-Canadian government is exactly that.


  1. What's the definition of insanity? Someone who keeps doing the same wrong thing over and over again(or something like that) My point: It's insane what these guys do.


I greatly appreciate your comments!