punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 A dissenting opinion has to be based in fact. They invented the facts to suit their own cause. They said this quote was part of the AGs current report about the G20/G8 and how proper the spending was. In reality, it was stolen from a previous report. It was never in the report. That was never the AGs opinion. It is a bald lie. Yah I agree whoever wrote the dissention opinion did a poor job but the fact is they didn't write to be Conservative cheerleaders they wrote it because they had to write it. It was parliamentary procedure and they assumed no one would ever read it so they did a crappy job. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Yah I agree whoever wrote the dissention opinion did a poor job but the fact is they didn't write to be Conservative cheerleaders they wrote it because they had to write it. It was parliamentary procedure and they assumed no one would ever read it so they did a crappy job. That's the most likely scenario as far as I can tell. Quote
nicky10013 Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 So as acedemics, you and iggy should be giving proper citation. Does iggy give citation when he makes his borrowed sayings? By gum he forged them! I think they're fairly well known. Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 That's the most likely scenario as far as I can tell. I'm not going to lie I am sure if I wrote reports no one ever read for a living I would do a shitty job of it too. Good thing that isn't my job, I assume it is soul crushing. Quote
nicky10013 Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 That's the most likely scenario as far as I can tell. You can honestly write "welcome to the real world" and then say this? And you call me partisan? At least I have the balls to admit it. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 You can honestly write "welcome to the real world" and then say this? And you call me partisan? At least I have the balls to admit it. I'm not partisan. I currently support the incumbent government. I thought there was a scandal here earlier. I'm just not seeing it now, because there isn't much of anything to see. Quote
blueblood Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I'm not going to lie I am sure if I wrote reports no one ever read for a living I would do a shitty job of it too. Good thing that isn't my job, I assume it is soul crushing. Why wouldn't you do a shitty job? The govt is one of the hardest place to be fired from. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Why wouldn't you do a shitty job? The govt is one of the hardest place to be fired from. Plus it sounds like a terrible job and most of these people are not Liberal or Conservatives. They are bureaucrats so someone coming to you telling you "Hey you have to write the dissenting opinion for the G20 money for Monday's committee meeting" you really could care less. It wont change anything, it isn't an important report, and again I don't know how many times I have to say this that job sounds horrible. Quote
nicky10013 Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 I'm not partisan. I currently support the incumbent government. I thought there was a scandal here earlier. I'm just not seeing it now, because there isn't much of anything to see. Yeah, really...so to completely shun common sense over something regarding the incumbent government you support isn't partisan in the least. I've spent too much time in school to know this isn't shady. Unlike your claim, this just doesn't happen. Unless of course you can provide me an explanation where it has, and it hasn't resulted in someone being fired or kicked out of school. Quote
punked Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 Yeah, really...so to completely shun common sense over something regarding the incumbent government you support isn't partisan in the least. I've spent too much time in school to know this isn't shady. Unlike your claim, this just doesn't happen. Unless of course you can provide me an explanation where it has, and it hasn't resulted in someone being fired or kicked out of school. You are going to have to point who wrote the dissenting opinion to prove that one. I really don't know their motivation or if they are even a Conservative. Considering the AGs letter was sent on Friday I can tell you why no one has been fired. It is because the Letter got to Parliament yesterday. Quote
Smallc Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 You are going to have to point who wrote the dissenting opinion to prove that one. I really don't know their motivation or if they are even a Conservative. Considering the AGs letter was sent on Friday I can tell you why no one has been fired. It is because the Letter got to Parliament yesterday. How dare you shun common sense in support of the incumbent government...oh, wait. Quote
Evening Star Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 This leak does still seem to show a lack of transparency verging on manipulation of Parliament, unusually high expenses, and inadequate documentation. I don't think it's a total 'nothing'. Quote
Evening Star Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I do also think that we should actually wait for the final report without arriving at conclusions (and am glad that no one reads my drafts ). Edited April 12, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
jbg Posted April 12, 2011 Report Posted April 12, 2011 It is because the Letter got to Parliament yesterday.Huh? I thought Parliament was dissolved on March 25, or whenever Parliament voted "no confidence". No? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Shakeyhands Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Uh oh...... Harper wins again. What??? What??? It's an accounting difference... no wait... it's an old system... no wait.... edited to add link and pithy commentary! Edited June 9, 2011 by Shakeyhands Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Molly Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Uh oh...... Harper wins again. What??? What??? It's an accounting difference... no wait... it's an old system... no wait.... edited to add link and pithy commentary! This deserves it's own thread. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Topaz Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 AS the interim AG said there may be laws broken when the Tories asked for money for one thing and spent the money in Tony's riding. Speaking of Tony, today, I really saw the fear in the eyes, when the CBC reporter asked a question of him and he hid behind Baird and so Baird came to the rescue. How can a government spend 50 million and show no paper work? Well, if you don't want people to know where it went you..... Also, today, Harper said in QP, that money is always taken out of the border fund and used for other things and when asked the AG about this, he said that was news to him. On the transparency issue, which this government is not, after the budget, the Tories passed to taxpayer a bill for 5.50 for our contribution to MP's contribution of a $1 towards their golden pensions. Yeah, they REALLY care about taxpayers money. Their words don't match their actions! Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Didn't the AG know about this before the election? If so, why was it not disclosed... as though I don't know the answer! Quote
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Once and awhile when I've missed the first few pages of a thread, I like to click on the last page and just read those replies to see where the conversation has gone without any background. This conversation seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the government stole taxpayers money and funnelled it into a project without the consent of Parliament and without due process. No one is talking about the fact that the government is operating not on their own dime, but the money of Canadian citizens. This government refused to go to the people that represent those citizens to ask about spending the money on this and worse still did what they could to hide it. On the last page here, you guys are splitting hairs about bad report writing. No wonder Parliamentary Pages have to shock people out of their stupor. Quote
RNG Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Didn't the AG know about this before the election? If so, why was it not disclosed... as though I don't know the answer! I thought in another thread, or perhaps in the dark deep past of this one, people who seemed to know said that the AG can only release reports to parliament, and parliament was suspended(?) then. The doubters figured Harper arranged it such that the break for the election was to prevent it from being tabled. So why did the opposition vote him down? Don't make much sense to me. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Rick Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 Once and awhile when I've missed the first few pages of a thread, I like to click on the last page and just read those replies to see where the conversation has gone without any background. This conversation seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the government stole taxpayers money and funnelled it into a project without the consent of Parliament and without due process. No one is talking about the fact that the government is operating not on their own dime, but the money of Canadian citizens. This government refused to go to the people that represent those citizens to ask about spending the money on this and worse still did what they could to hide it. On the last page here, you guys are splitting hairs about bad report writing. No wonder Parliamentary Pages have to shock people out of their stupor. Amen.But we both know what happens whenever there's anything remotely critical of the cons Dear Leader...they intentionally toss every red herring into the fray and attempt to derail the thread to thwart attention away from the actual facts.. that the government stole taxpayers money and funnelled it into a project without the consent of Parliament and without due process. No one is talking about the fact that the government is operating not on their own dime, but the money of Canadian citizens. This government refused to go to the people that represent those citizens to ask about spending the money on this and worse still did what they could to hide it. and today, the auditor-general's report proved it. Harper's party of cons and crooks stole taxpayers money. Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 Anybody have anything to say about budgeting for $1.1 billion but only spending a little over half of that? I know - they inflated their estimates so they would look good. Right.....and all the while, the opposition is saying they spent over a billion. And funnelling money into Clements' riding for "electoral" purposes? He didn't need to - he has comfortably won that riding every time. The Conservatives accepted to AG's findings, accepted the accountability for the "oversights" and said they'd do things better next time. Quote Back to Basics
Evening Star Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Anybody have anything to say about budgeting for $1.1 billion but only spending a little over half of that? This was a pleasant surprise, yes. But what is your defence of the spending in Clement's riding? Or the way it was presented to Parliament? Edited June 10, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 funnelling money into Clements' riding for "electoral" purposes? He didn't need to - he has comfortably won that riding every time. Sounds like he's been funneling money, every time. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) The people who rob banks say they're really sorry and won't let it happen again when they get caught too. That's hardly accountability. Edited June 10, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.