Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (89010)	4/11/2012 1:51:05 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218554

"Smart shopping today buying food that is not processed stuff yields many bargains in big markets like Toronto." Can you do me a favour? Phone MacKay and give him some advice on your technique. How can someone make a $10 Billion screw-up? F-35 fighters: Calls for MacKay to be ousted over jet fiasco turn nasty and personal Published 14 minutes ago The Canadian Press OTTAWA—The calls for Defence Minister Peter MacKay to be fired over the auditor general’s scathing report on F-35 fighter jets have become louder and nastier. The opposition Liberals say MacKay doesn’t know his file and pointed to a flub yesterday in Halifax where the minister referenced the wrong statistical table in trying to make his case over the conflicting numbers associated with last week’s bombshell audit. Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau says MacKay is either incompetent or “not too bright.” The personal attack followed claims that the Conservative government lied over the cost of the multi-billion-dollar program by not including roughly $10 billion in regular, ongoing operational expenses. The Defence Department was accused of hiding the truth by Auditor General Michael Ferguson, who says — had operational costs been included — the real cost of the F-35 program would be more like $24.7 billion, instead of the reported $14.7 billion. The inclusion of ongoing operational expenses is a long-standing disagreement between the military and the auditor, dating back a decade to when the Liberals had to defend their expenses and the use of Challenger jets. thestar.com