RNG Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Actually, they weren't even on the high side when you consider there was two summits (there won't be two at pretty much any other time ever. I still like the aircraft carrier option the best. Supersaver, that would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarg Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The 2002 G8 summit hosted in Kananaskis cost us 300 million, now i dont agree with holding the summit in a big city, but, considering this summit was much larger the money spent doesn't seem out of line with the 2002 summit, so where are the complaints about that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 now i dont agree with holding the summit in a big city, The G20 has never been held anywhere else. There simply isn't enough room in a small place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 Actually, they weren't even on the high side when you consider there was two summits (there won't be two at pretty much any other time ever. It doesn't even matter if it was on the low side. What matters is the misappropriation of taxpayers' money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The G20 has never been held anywhere else. There simply isn't enough room in a small place. I'd suggest Alberta's Suffield military range. There's a lot of room out there; they can pitch as many tents as are needed. And, if they do it right, they could make certain any protesters had to cross fields full of unexploded ordenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 It doesn't even matter if it was on the low side. What matters is the misappropriation of taxpayers' money. Okay, sure, but everyone was up in arms over the cost...except it didn't cost nearly the original estimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Okay, sure, but everyone was up in arms over the cost...except it didn't cost nearly the original estimate. It was still a ridiculous expense during the hardest economic recovery we've had in a generation. There's probably 1001 better uses for the money. But what really matters either is the fact that the government saw fit to lie to parliament about where it was being spent. The biggest complaint about Chretien et al that people had was that they acted like they were entitled to taxpayers money. Successive majorities will do that to you. This Conservative government acted that way with a minority and were rewarded with a majority for doing it. That's a dangerous precedent. What's the punishment for lying to parliament about where you're spending taxpayers money? A majority government. Great. If nearly $700 million was a necessary expense, fine. Perhaps that riding needed the money. But to just spend taxpayers money without being open and transparent about where it's going... not cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 It was still a ridiculous expense during the hardest economic recovery we've had in a generation. There's probably 1001 better uses for the money. ] Despite what you may believe, the expense (for the most part) wasn't optional. We want to be part of the first world, we have to pay up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 So you're saying everything they spent money on was mandatory? I find that hard to believe. They could have spent far less than they did, I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 So you're saying everything they spent money on was mandatory? I find that hard to believe. They could have spent far less than they did, I bet. Probably, but being a good host is part of the price of admission. Providing reasonable security is part of the price of admission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) I actually agree that it was good that Canada got to host the summits. I also agree that we need to spend enough to be good hosts. I don't even have much of a problem with a $664M price tag. (See, I'm TOTALLY not a radical anarcho-syndicalist, whatever Political Compass might say!) NONE of this excuses Clement's shenanigans. (For that matter, I also support the idea of advertising to promote federalism in the aftermath of a close Quebec referendum. I think we should be willing to pay for it.) Also, I am drunk and am REALLY into using capital letters to make a point. Edited June 13, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 NONE of this excuses Clement's shenanigans. Definitely not. Drunk on a Sunday night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Don't you get it - when you are that rich you don't pay for anything - you don't pay tax - or for a meal.....after all it's the poor guy that supports these people - I am sure that no one puts an NSF charge on their bank accounts - YOU take from the weak and give to the rich.....just like making money cos you have money...which makes more money - just for having money and you never spend your own - and the rule of thumb for the G8 class of guy is this "never give anyone anything ever" - but be more than willing to recieve all you can for nothing...that's our system...live with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Flew actually. Most leaders flew on Canadian Forces helicopters, and POTUS flew on his own helicopter. I was on the highway on Friday going to Huntsville and two motorcades came flying down with close to 20 cars.....dont think that would have been a underling in the limo. Potus yes, more , not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 I was on the highway on Friday going to Huntsville and two motorcades came flying down with close to 20 cars.....dont think that would have been a underling in the limo. I watched the footage of David Cameron getting on the Griffon. Maybe some went by car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 Drunk on a Sunday night? Between jobs... What can a man do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 The following article goes more into depth about the relationship which Clements had with the mayors in his riding. The e-mails show that Tony was going to do whatever he had to do to get what HE wanted and had help through the PMO to get it done. Will any thing become of this, under the Tories, of course not. How can it if the PMO was involved, just more of the same of the corruption that lies inside our government. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Clement+tells+mayor+that+will+defend+unorthodox+funding+arrangements/5456578/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 26, 2011 Report Share Posted September 26, 2011 The following article goes more into depth about the relationship which Clements had with the mayors in his riding. The e-mails show that Tony was going to do whatever he had to do to get what HE wanted and had help through the PMO to get it done. Will any thing become of this, under the Tories, of course not. How can it if the PMO was involved, just more of the same of the corruption that lies inside our government. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Clement+tells+mayor+that+will+defend+unorthodox+funding+arrangements/5456578/story.html Shouldn't his title be Minister of Slush Funds and Illegal PayoffsI really hope the RCMP finally grows the cajones and brings that criminal to justice. But I'm not holding my breathe...Steve's cronies will probably pay them off and buy their silence much like they did with a certain vaughan area Con getting a cushy job in return for his silence... Still, it'd bring a tear of joy to this poster's eye to watch Tony doing the perp walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.