gc1765 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 I suppose we could every single Liberal who was appointed was qualified if the Tories want to stretch the accountability angle. Very true. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Michael Bluth Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 But if that's the angle you want to play, I'll ask you right now, point blank: Do you see any problems with appointing predominantly "insiders", be they qualified or not? I mean, if the Liberals appointed all of their "insiders" to various positions, but they were all reasonably qualified, would you have a problem with that? You respond as if the Conservatives have made no improvements at all. Why would I choose to answer such a loaded question? Do you deny that the Conservatives have improved the system? Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Shakeyhands Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 (edited) Here's an actual link to the Accountability Act. (Boy was that hard to find. ) Do pick out the relevant section that Harper has broken. Michael, first of all I'd like to apologize. You see, I actually have a life. It was this life that has prevented me from being able to respond to this response from you until now. Again, I am truely sorry. The point about finding a link where Steve actually moves his thin little lips and says anything about patronage appointments was what I found difficult to find, not the link to the accountability act. But who is really surprised her, if whe don't say anything we can later play semantics right? The relevant point here is based around the Public Appointments Commission, this commission will NEVER be set up. This is becoming a typical of the CPC, take a look at the meetings in Bali... when given an opportunity to fdo nothing they throw their arms up in the air, gather theor marbels and toddle off home saying we tried but XXX won't play along. The prime minister said he'll likely need a majority government in order to clean up government. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/16/...n-rejected.html Edited December 14, 2007 by Shakeyhands Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Pliny Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 This government has gotten more secretive in every year it has been in power. Thanks for keeping us posted on their secret activities. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
guyser Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 Do you even know what an auditor is? My mistake, I said auditor and it was info commish , which of course is changes the entire problem. No mention of the content? Spin baby spin. Quote
jdobbin Posted December 14, 2007 Author Report Posted December 14, 2007 Thanks for keeping us posted on their secret activities. They are so secretive that they censored documents on the history of the Devil's Brigade from World War 2 even though it was a matter of public record the year before. The reason: they didn't want anyone to know about the history from where Joint Task Force 2 came from even though it was back in the 1940s. Quote
gc1765 Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 You respond as if the Conservatives have made no improvements at all. To be honest, I really don't know who was worse. I'd have to look at every appointment ever made...and that's just not realistic. I know that Chretien was bad when it came to patronage appointments. So, it seems, is Harper. Hard to say who was worse though. I don't remember hearing about many patronage appointments by Martin. Of course, I'm certain that it happened, I'm not denying that, just that it appears he was better than either Chretien or Harper when it comes to patronage appointments. Of course, I'm opposed to patronage appointments no matter which party does it. "Hey, at least we're not as bad as the last guys" is not a valid excuse, in my opinion. It might work for you, but not for me. Why would I choose to answer such a loaded question? Because as far as I can see in this thread (though perhaps I overlooked it) you haven't expressed how you feel about patronage appointments. I can only assume then, since you haven't condemned the Conservatives, that patronage appointments are just fine by you. And it stands to reason that if you have no problems with Conservatives making patronage appointments, so long as they are reasonably qualified, then you have no problems with Liberals making patronage appointments, so long as they are reasonably qualified? Do you deny that the Conservatives have improved the system? I don't know, how have the Conservatives improved the system with respect to patronage appointments? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Michael Bluth Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 Michael, first of all I'd like to apologize. You see, I actually have a life. It was this life that has prevented me from being able to respond to this response from you until now. Again, I am truely sorry. And the implication being that I don't have a life? You said it best Shakey. Sigh.. another personal attack, why do they please you so? Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Michael Bluth Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 I don't know, how have the Conservatives improved the system with respect to patronage appointments? The section from the platform was the key. Prior to this Government senior staffers in Minister's offices (Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, Director of Parliamentary Affairs, etc.) could choose to move into the public service without competition. I'm not sure exactly which positions or how long they had to serve before they could transfered. I might be wrong but I think they were guaranteed an EX-1 position or higher. Anybody please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on the details. The bottom line is political staffers could move to senior civil service positions. Many times these positions ended up costing the Government a lot of money with no value to taxpayers. This practice has stopped under the Conservatives. This is one example of how the Conservatives have improved the system. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Shakeyhands Posted December 14, 2007 Report Posted December 14, 2007 And the implication being that I don't have a life? You said it best Shakey. Your implication was that I had no response to your statement, I was just explaining my lack of being here to refute you.... I made no sort of implication upon you, only you know. Nice try though. Next? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
guyser Posted December 17, 2007 Report Posted December 17, 2007 No mention of the content?Spin baby spin. Look at that, ignored it again. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.