![]() Trudeaus' Caribbean flight details redacted to exclude nanny, in-lawsPolitical | 207760 hits | Aug 25 2:49 am | Posted by: Freakinoldguy Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
so much for open and accountable....
Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.
so much for open and accountable....
Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.
. . .after Harper promising the same thing and not delivering.
so much for open and accountable....
Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.
. . .after Harper promising the same thing and not delivering.
And let's not forget Obongo.
It's pablum for the idiots.
When the corporate jet was flying one single manager to the same place I was sent force me to go Westjet instead?
Should the nanny fly Air Canada just so the PM has to pay and no other logical reason?
It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.
Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.
If the PM can do it why can't they?
Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/
The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.
It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.
Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.
If the PM can do it why can't they?
Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/
The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.
Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)
It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.
Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.
If the PM can do it why can't they?
Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/
The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.
Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)
Of course they did and paid for their digressions in the last election but, then again they aren't in power now are they?
Sorry but if you bitched about the Conservatives doing it but are fine with the Liberals doing it you've got a problem.
Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)
I always give shit to the Conservatives here for using this argument... so in the spirit of fairness, I give you shit too... a whole pile of it.
On the not releasing their names part, I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the nannies and in-laws are private citizens accompanying as personal guests so in the Privacy Era, I can see why some might think reporting their comings and goings to the general public Is inappropriate.
On the other hand, while the family members joining them on the plane is irrelevant, what if they had been campaign donors, lobbyists, or other people who do business with the government then that is relevant and if they don't have to disclose their guests then you give them license to hide inappropriate relationships