Fortunata

IIRC, it not only registered what all people asked for under the ATIP but the length of time it took to fulfill that request. That holds governments accountable. I guess Steve didn't like the press and the public to see the serious slowdown of completion under his reign compared to other governments. Parrot whatever you want to Argus but there is a serious problem with the speed (or lack thereof) under Steve and the amount of blacked-out censored material to come out of this gov't. There is no openness and transparency as Steve and his faithful no-matter-what herd bleat about.

There but for the grace of God go I. Thank you oh Benevolent One for giving a me a brain to think for myself instead of being one of the herd.

The memo from the lawyer saying the in and out scheme "may" be illegal according to the rules and the falsified invoice belies their "so-called" interpretation. I don't "hate" Conservatives. I have no respect or liking for Steve but that's a whole different story. Steph has more credibility than Steve on this but that's only because Steve has none.

And we should believe what they say ... why? Their credibility is at a zero over this issue but it might be worth some entertainment value. If the questions get too hard maybe we can see them slither down the nearest stairwell like they did last time.

And then if the Ethics Commission agrees that the warrant was warranted will the Cons yell conspiracy? How long do you think that will take them (or the flock)? An hour, two?

I think Canadians (other than the very partisan Cons) trust Elections Canada more than they trust any governing party. After all EC is invited to actively participate in elections around the world because of their neutrality and their adherence to policies and laws. Steve et al. smearing EC is not going over well; people have been hearing this "conspiracy" that everyone is against the poor Cons too many times now to take it seriously. Steve is getting to be known as our national whiner and blamer, which is funny because the right wing is supposed to take personal responsibility seriously and preach it on every possible occasion (at least when it doesn't apply to themselves). According to whom? The CPC who lies and misrepresents easier and more often that a person breathes? And which campaign strategy even if this is true - the one coming up or the last one in which there was a memo to the effect that the in and out scheme to rob taxpayers may not be legal (and certainly not ethical)? That campaign strategy that points out that the CPC knowingly committed to what may likely be fraud?

Is it really serious if it was "only"? How much would it have to be for the flock to not make excuses and justify this government's actions. It is serious when there is any breach of ethics or laws by any party or any government. One is not better because the actions aren't worth as much money, aren't as flagrant as another, if a government can be sneakier than the last one or if one appears to be "taking the high road" by saying they will follow the laws as they see them. A breach is a breach is a serious breach if it was done knowingly and especially if it was falsified or covered up (no matter how clumsily).

If you are a serious recycler you probably are already a serious reducer and reuser. Recycling is tiresome so reducing the recycling should always be the first goal.

For the record, it wasn't "the Liberals" who coined the term - it was "a" Liberal by the name of David Dingwall.

Attacking, blaming, smearing is taking the high ground? He doesn't know the meaning of high ground.

I guess rules don't apply to Conservatives; they don't even seem to try to follow them. When questioned they attack and blame the other guy. Their supporters think what ever they do is ok because the Libs did something before them. What on earth would this government have to do to earn any criticism from the flock?

Really? http://www.thestar.com/article/416912 If they were on the up and up, why change/alter/forge an invoice? If they weren't hiding something why the trickery? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, smells fishy to me.

Could you please provide a list of which Lib MPs were involved and the ridings which they represent from all over the country. Can you provide a cite about Dion? Pretty much right even if you don't buy into the blarney that Steve's ads try to paint him. Haven't noticed this. Compared to the PCs after Mulroney the Libs are holding their own better than they deserve to (thanks to Steve and his merry band of pit bulls). Polls find them as "in touch" as the CPC in much of the case. Should the CPC retool as well? If they did maybe they would get a majority. See above. Libs, NDP, CPC have no monopoly on Canadian values. One thing that is not a Canadian value is attack, attack, attack which the CPC do continuously. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions they always try to pass it off as someone else's fault. You righties should have a huge problem with this as you preach taking responsibility if you are: on welfare, a drug addict, a criminal, etc. Why do you not hold your party to the same standard as other lowlifes?

Mike Duffy said that CTV broke the story???

Iirc, we used to have a research program to do exactly that. It makes more sense than by using edibles for burnables. Brazil uses a lot of sugar cane waste for their ethanol getting a double whammy from one plant.

If media can't be controlled why invite Con-friendly news agencies only? It appears that CTV has bought into the Con message; they defend them at every turn. Steve isn't controlling media like his predecessors; he'd like to control media like the Soviets (do) did imv. Only thing is he thought Propaganda 101 would do the trick but some of the masses aren't as malleable as he thought.

The question is: Why selected media? If you are going to have Con-friendly types only like CTV doesn't that just inevitably raise old issues like controlling the media, softball questions only, say what we say not what we do? The Soviets (as now does China) had this propaganda thing down to a fine art. Steve still has some learning to do by the looks of it.

We're off home for Christmas in the morning! Merry Christmas to all of you; hope you enjoy time with family and friends. YAY! It's Christmas.

Joe Volpe Whajisface Khan Sven (even tho he's out) Emerson Flaherty Lunn Steve himself Layton should have been second or third Traitor MacKay John Baird Hedy Fry John McCallum Bev Oda

As this post indicates, you don't have to be Muslim to feel you can treat women as lesser beings.

CBC Newsworld is not funded by taxpayers. The Hour is not funded by taxpayers; that came up on one of the shows. The main channel CBC and CBC radio is funded by taxpayers. Some programming, such as the National, even though it's on Newsworld is probably taxpayer funded since it was on the main channel before Newsworld was created.

Sorry, Borg, I should have said CBC interviewed a Canadian delegate (not a government delegate) at the Conference who said that. The interview wasn't just about Baird.

What truth? It's your opinion vs. my opinion. Opinions aren't truth they are speculation. Maybe we could get Steve's stylist psychick in for a future-telling? Settle it once and for all. What do you think?

Not the Libs if that's what you were inferring. Which makes the argument for the Cons once again ..... but the Liberals. It's sad that this government and it's supporters cannot or will not stand on their own merits and principles, which it seems Con supporters don't really care about - only if it's a fraction better, or can be spun as better, than the Liberals before them.

Andrew Coin said last night that the biggest mistake the government (and past Lib governments) made over this is doing it in secret. It should have all been done out in the open for input and to rest people's fears. Doing anything is secret raises suspicions but regardless of secret or transparent, I am not in favour.