Sometimes a picture is really worth a thousand words.
Liberals are not learning from their mistakes. After crying wolf on numerous issues and getting caught with your pants down on trying to create a scandal,don't you think you should get all the facts?Just saying.
If you'd like to share some relevant facts with us, CS, don't let me stop you.Feel free.
Jeff, a) I am not privy to any inside information.b) If I was, it would be a tactical mistake to interrupt you making a mistake. This was a friendly fyi, to look before you leap, as I think you are a fairly balanced blogger in Lib blogs.This reminds me of how the Liberals hammered the CPC for sole supplier of H1N1 decision to find out the LPOC did the deal and were the beneficiary of substantial corp donations.The LPOC have no interest in defeating the Govt in the near term? The AG wil review and deliver the respected hammer if incompetence is the issue in spending on EAP or G20.Just saying, the LPOC is cooperating on ensuring the supply bills pass.
Far me it from me to interrupt your tactics, but that all seems a little baffling.The role of the opposition is to examine and question government action and spending. We've seen security spending on this conference hitting figures many many times over the government's own estimates, and many more times over past similar events in Canada and elsewhere.The opposition, and Canadians, I think would like to know why so much is being spent, on what, could it have been done cheaper, and why is it so much over initial estimates? I think those are all reasonable questions.It could well be there are reasonable and plausible answers to those questions. If so, I think it's incumbent on the government to share them with the public.If there's a reasonable explanation, great, let's move on. If not, they they got some 'splainin to do. And I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation.
I agree 100% the opposition need to hold the government to account and ask questions that matter.((Helena, Rahim circus was 2 months right?))The disconnect is Liberals are complaining about the excessive spending without actually voting against it. (Get it?)We both agree one billion+ is a large sum of money for hosting these events in two locations.Full agreement.My observation is the Liberals are trying to tar the CPC with labels that the Liberals have earned as per Auditor General Reports.They tried with H1N1 (Alps used it for fundraising calling it our Katrina)LGR, Chalk River-Maple Three Reactors boondoggles were based on Sheila Fraser reports. She will fully investigate and provide a full Report.Do you remember Liberals complaining about the Olympic logos, torch relay?My advice is to get the facts before crying wolf so many times, it does not help with credibility.
"My advice is to get the facts before crying wolf so many times, it does not help with credibility."Only Cansense could come up with something so delightfully kooky and obtuse. Straigt from the BT Master Baiter's Handbook. Well done Cansensical - utterly goofball!Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
CS, if we had an election every time the Conservatives did something we didn't like, we'd have elections every week. That's not how the system works. I recall the Conservatives voting with the Liberal government once because they didn't think an election was warranted at the time. It's called acting responsibly.I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation for the dramatic spending increase from the Conservatives. They seem unwilling to offer one. That's telling in itself. What are they waiting for, exactly? That's the issue.
Jeff, not sure if message got through was dc'd.No one is suggesting to pull the plug everytime you don't like legislation.1)Parliamentary Supremacy via documents Libs folded.2) $ 500 million+ security bill does NOT need Liberals to pass.Two other parties can step up. The NDP may invoke their lifeline:"making parliament work" again. The Liberals should NOT prop up the gov't if they don't support them on significant issues.I have not suggested they pull the plug on a small issue.
Well... Huntsville and Toronto -- two separate sites, two separate security set-ups.So take the 2002 summit, and double it -- $380 million. These summits are larger, so tack on another 25% -- ballpark it at $500 mil.That'd be a reasonable level of expenses. The other 300 million? Well, that's not good.
Post a Comment