Phil tried to argue that gun control is too expensive but out of control spending is okay:
Phil is the same person who had no problem spending taxpayers' money on thousands of Canadian flags with his e-mail address on them and sending them out.
Forget a calculator, Phil needs an abacus!
4 comments:
Phils priorities are completely out of touch.
He doesn't want to spend $3.1 million to protect Canadians from gun violence but spending over a billion dollars on the G8/G20 is perfectly fine?
Shame.
I'm pretty sure it was the Conservatives that brought in that new math where $3.1 million is in fact > than $1.2 billion. Simply works by ignoring the written word after the number or the zeros. What Phil sees. $3.1 > $1.2 ignoring million and billion.
The only reason they are trying to get rid of the gun registry is because, as the police chiefs always point out, front line police officers need it to fight crime.
Conservative politicians generally try to make it easier for criminals to commit violent crimes because the more frightened voters get, the more likely they are to vote Conservative.
That's why Conservative "tough on crime" policies are typically dumb on crime and actually make it easier for criminals to hurt innocent people.
Definitely not a fan of this tough on crime stance the Conservatives are taking. Building more jails and eliminating the tools of police, with 3.1 mil being a relatively cheap tool in that world, does not make law enforcement easier or more effective.
It's too bad there isn't a party/party leader that step up to fill this void. Ignatieff is terrible and the NDP doesn't have the critical mass. Harper will get the votes because the Conservatives are the only party that seem ready to govern.
Post a Comment
All comments will be posted except for instances of profanity, spam, hate speech, defamation, etc.