Accountability Now

Winning! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qat9gR5nrpM

And of course if he did do it, they would be trashing him for wasting time that could be spent on more important things.

It's not whether Harper can do it or not its that as the leader he can't pick and choose which causes to promote regardless of how good the cause. Other MPs aren't in the same position as Harper and of course we already know that Trudeau has no problem using his public office for private gain after his public speaking tours.

I had seen this too. My first thought (and its not well developed) is that the top 3 things that cause death (Heart Disease, COPD and Diabetes) are somewhat caused by things that we already know. For example (heart attacks from obesity, COPD - smoking, diabetes - poor diet (for the one type)) No one knows what causes ALS which perhaps warrant more money to figure out what actually does. The top two items for fundraising are cancer related which again is something that we don't have a strong handle on.....therefore more money needed. The ALS fundraiser will most likely move into the top 3 after this go.

I don't think this is a matter of being personable or not, the fact is that when you are the head of the state you are put in a situation where you don't get to do what you want as there is a perception issue. As the article below states, officials can't use pucblic office for private gain "no matter how worthy the cause". http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-bows-out-of-ice-bucket-challenge-but-donates-money-106332.html

So by your standards I guess that makes Obama and all the US diplomats or high ranking officials to not appear personable or human either?

I can honestly say I didn't know that. I've always associated the four provinces as the Maritimes. I guess you learn something new every day.

Um...no. There are 32 seats in the Maritimes (NB-10, NS-11, PEI -4, NL -7). The Conservatives won 14 of those seats. 14 out of 32 is 43.75% which is not 'over half' as you suggest. The original comment and the dialogue thus far has been about the Maritimes in general...not NB alone. I'm glad that you cherry picked NB to highlight the Conservatives in that province however leaving out the other three provinces glosses over the lower popular votes with your home province of NL showing the lowest at 28.4%. When you look at the votes for the Liberal Party...now there is a story. The Liberals got 18.9% of the popular vote across Canada but in every Maritime province they exceeded that. NL and PEI exceeded it by quite a bit with respective numbers of 37.9 and 41. I think its quite fair to say the Maritimes are still quite Liberal on the Federal level. I absolutely agree however my issue was that the original comment indicated that Ottawa is ignoring the Maritimes after they 'delivered' victory in 2006 and 2011. Why would the Federal Conservatives 'owe' the Martimes provinces after earning less than half the seats and giving a higher popular vote to another party? With that said, Alberta gave the Conservatives 27 out of 28 possible seats and the highest popular vote (66.8%) out of any party in any province....YET I still don't believe they should be given prefential treatment. The idea of the government owing a particular region is ridiculous.

Yes. You're right. My margin of 24 didn't take into account that taking a seat from the Conservatives and giving it to others is a factor of two. Regardless...the Maritimes involvement in the Conservatives majority is equivalent to a hockey player scoring 3 goals and being directly responsible for 4 goals against and now saying that he is responsible for the victory. The reality is that the Maritimes did more to hurt them then help with 18 seats going to the other parties. This is unlike BC, Alberta, Sask, Man and Ont who all supported the Conservatives more than all other parties combined in their respective province. The truest reality is that it doesn't matter what the Maritimes or the west does. It comes down to Ontario (mostly) and Quebec.

Personally I think it's just people complaining because they have nothing better to do. It's been a great campaign that has not only raised a bunch of cash for the cause but more importantly awareness.

LeBron James did it and challenged Obama however he won't do it. I trust most politicians don't usually get involved in this stuff.

Was there ever to be a vote? The committee recommended they be found in contempt. Two days later the non confidence motion was tabled and two days after that they voted on the non confidence. I'm not sure what the next step for the contempt side was but they sure didn't give it much time.

The budget didn't pass because all three opposition leaders didn't have confidence in the government based on the contempt finding. The actual no-confidence motion filed by Ignattief was based on the contempt finding. Again...all political manouevers that killed the Liberals in the end!

It's true the die hard supporters will support for either side. My point is that enough fence sitters who were once Liberals/NDP were now choosing Conservative in light of this parliamentary maneuver. PS...I have never voted for Harper or the Conservatives on the Federal level. So your assessment of me being die hard is not even close!

Based on the fact this "contempt" forced an election in 2011, an election that have the Conservatives a majority, I would say no.....Canadians don't care. They agreed that it was a parliamentary manouever and they roasted the parties responsible for it.

Good for you Bob. I particularily don't like when people used erroneous statements to back up their self serving propoganda. This one in particular was fairly easy as the numbers don't lie. Cyber could have easily acknowledged that the numbers don't back up his claim but chose not to. With that said, this is your first post on this thread so I guess you weren't really "IN" on the conversation so pardon me if I total disregard what you have to say unless you have something interesting to add about the apparent National Strategy that Cyber thinks is being overlooked by those dirty Conservatives. Speaking of conversations though....you never did answer my simple question on the Trudeau thread about how the Transparency bill is embarrassing the FN. Perhaps you have nothing to add at all to this forum other than your drive by food for thought?

That was doing well? I sure hope your other Maritime folks don't set the bar so low. I responded directly to your post as you provided a statement that was flat out incorrect. Of course you consider it a nuisance when others show you the error in your way simply because it doesn't allow you to play the victim card that you're so good at throwing down. If you don't want people on this forum to call you out for stupid things you say then don't say them. Very simple.

IF the Conservatives do well in the Maritimes???? In 2006 they had 9 of 32 seats and 10 of 32 in 2011. You call this 'doing well'??? How on earth can anyone predict the other 276 seats especially when only 28% went to the Convervatives? What a load of crap you are feeding here. The best Harper has done in the Maritimes is slightly better than a tie with the Liberals but you keep saying they are doing well? Of course, don't let the hard numbers get in the way of your issues. LOL. Its your point. One that is severely flawed if not outright incorrect. Yet you choose to purpot this point to play out your victim card of the nasty Harper government's evil plot to ruin the Maritimes. Ironic....don't see people in Newfoundland having these issues. The lack of economic sustainability has been an issue in the Maritimes for ever. It was actually because of the Martimes that the Equalization Program was created....but yet you are now saying this is Harper's fault? LOL. I'm hoping you were at least consistent and blamed it on Martin and Cretien and Mulrooney and so on.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada

Perhaps you don't understand basic math. In 2011 the Conservatives got 166 seats which have them a majority by 24 seats. You could take all those 14 seats the Conservatives won in the Maritimes and give them to any other party and the majority would stand. The Maritimes delivered nothing. In fact they gave the Liberals 12 of the 34 of all Liberal seats across Canada. If anything they were neutral

Is this more of your patented sarcasm? The Maritimes had 32 seats. In 2006 9 of those seats went to the Conservatives with 20 going to the Liberals. How on earth do you see this as "delivering" Harper a victory? Move onto 2008 where the Conservatives got one more seat (10) but still trailed the Liberals who had 17. In 2011 the Conservatives actually pushed ahead by one seat (14 versus 12) however the current standings show 13 each.So please explain again how the Maritimes "delivered" Harper a victory. More importantly, explain why Harper should care about the promises made to the Maritimes when they've never outright supported him in the first place?

How does this legislation embarrass them....especially the ones that have nothing to hide?

Don't worry....the transparency act will show you what you want once all the statements are in. Here's hoping it's just one or two...

Why do they account for it? Government officials don't decide salaries or bonuses.

As per SmallC's comment, this guy and his fellow council decide who gets the money which at times leaves the rest of the group in a peculiar situation. If the whole band agreed on it then I couldn't care less. However I'm doubting that's the case.

Has someone hijacked Cyber's account? Or is this sarcasm at its best?