How were the media supposed to "find" this story?

Prove they knew about it and said nothing.

They can only find this out if someone tells them about it. It is not like they have some super duper secret device that beeps every time an MP is investigated.

Try to get a grip and bring some actual facts into the discussion.

Remember when I asked you to try using some facts to support your argument?

All you have done here is present your paranoid conspiracy theory.

Facts, OK? Just try one little tiny fact and see if that helps.

Ah yes – the old "prove a negative" argument. A true sign that you know your argument does not hold water…

Try again wilson – this time with facts.

Are we allowed to refer to certain cabinet ministers as pouffs? And I'm getting bored with Palin's 'lame stream media' tag. Couldn't you come up with something on your own?

Last I looked there wasn't free speech in Canada….free expression by the boatload, but free speech? Not so much.

(of course I'm arguing with a man who thinks questioning a person's sexual orientation is screamingly hilarious…so maybe I should lower my expectations a smidge)

The negligence charge is from the civil suit. The police are investigating fraud. Shory's best hope is that he is so dumb he had no idea what was going on around him. Just what we want in our MP's.

Why are you shouting? You don't know all the details so you really can't comment.

Gary, if you go back a few days on wherry's blog you'll discover the "why". The post is titled "fight the real enemy". Remember that since the universe as we know ir didn't end on Friday and all parties reached a compromise which was remarkably similar to the PM's original offer, one is forced to conclude that people who aren't lefties are the real enemy in this neighborhood.

Heh, glad you like my style Gayle!
snowdy said he had documented proof that Apps was working for Gillani until 2008,
has an email showing that Apps referred a client to Gillani,
the committee has asked for him to table the docs, he said he will comply.
It ain't over yet my dear.

As for your "style", I give you credit for at least admitting you are trying to get people to draw a false conclusion.

She doesn't actually believe it. Her purpose here is not to whine on her own behalf. Her purpose is to encourage others to believe something that is not true. Just look at the kinds of things she posts. She will refer to the same lie, over and over again, also not because she believes it to be true, but because she wants others to believe it to be true.

Of course, the fact is this particular media website is permitting her to spread her propoganda on their site, so it is kind of hard to argue they are biased against her political vioews. That kind of logic does not compute with the paranoid conspiracy theorists to whom wilson is attempting to appeal.

Hmmm

Did I strike a nerve?

Her purpose is to encourage others to believe something that is not true.

Right. Just as yours is to show up whenever some Liberal is in trouble and deny/defend/divert. I imagine Ted Betts will be along shortly as well? Or does the war room give him weekends off?

It's nasty weather here, so I took a boo over at other sites. Would you believe Wilson is making the same, old, tired nonsense on all of them?

Wilson must spend 24/7 look up notes to post on every site possible.

The problem with that – overexposure. After a while no one listens.

It's really very sad.

I wonder, does she get paid for this by the Cons?

You are correct – should be you're. My apologies.

The message is the same though – You're sick.

Pay attention there Mr. Angry – my comment was directed at Wilson.

Good grief – you think that saying "you're sick of little s#+*s like you" bothers me in the least?

Na, not at all.

Heh. And making stuff up about media bias is totally on topic, right?
Good luck with your little campaign.

biff and I go way back.

So? Where is the proof he was actually lobbying?

Do you think it only matters that the website says what is said? That it does not matter whether or not he actually IS a lobbiest?

Of course, that is not at all what I said.

And you have avoided the question. If he was lobbying the government, why doesn't the government provide proof of same.

I think we both know that is because no such proof exists.

Nice try though.

As stated above, the thing is in itself evidence. You've got a drunk driving Liberal MP giving lame excuses that would make a three year old laugh and a corrupt media; your problem should be with them, if you care about this country, not me.

Fact: he was arrested for drunk driving and, unlike virtually every other similar case, the media sat on the story for weeks then let him report it himself at a news conference on a Friday afternoon, despite his arrest being a matter of public record for weeks.

That is sufficient evidence of collusion, it's not my problem if you are clearly far, far too dense to understand that, the people will and the Liberals will lose Quebec for an eighth consecutive election.

Next you'll say you believe his story that he didn't have enough sense to understand how to blow into a breathalyzer correctly, an excuse that is hostile to the intellect of Canadians.

I just did prove it, they didn't report it for a month, that's collusion. I don't mean to be rude, but you're being deliberately and not so deliberately obtuse, and the stalking is a little bit creepy.

Now, for a second time, I'm going to ask you to stop cyber-stalking me, thanks.

Sweetie, you're coming off as mentally deranged. Now, I'm happy to see you use the word please for once, but short of using hand puppets I think at this point its fair to say you're too dense to get it, especially when you ask how a charge under the criminal code of Canada is a matter of public record, and ask how media organizations with crime and political reporters are supposed to report on crime and politics.

That's clear evidence of someone with a limited understanding of law and public administration who, in my opinion, should not be harassing adults trying to have a good faith discussion on public affairs. Sorry if that sounds mean, but I have proved collusion beyond a reasonable doubt and I have no training for educating individuals with special needs such as yourself on the matter.

I see you're doing the same thing in another thread, asking for proof of lobbying for a guy who advertised himself as a "lobbyist" for over three years at one of the largest law firms in Canada. That's intentionally obtuse, also very funny.

Blurting out "you have no facts" after you have just had the facts explained to you very patiently is pretty weak troll-fu. The media sat on the story for weeks and that is fact, one that your play stupid routine cannot change.

Now, GET LOST, Liberal troll. Men and women are discussing politics and one thing we do have ample proof of at this point is that you are a MENTALLY DERANGED LIBERAL STALKER who TROLLS threads. Scram, vamoose, we don't need the drama, sweetie.

You know what? I am going to help you out here, because you seem to be lacking some basic knowledge, and that is causing you to draw some illogical conclusions.

First, the fact that criminal charges are a matter of public record means only that the public may come and watch any trial it wants to watch. It does not mean that every time someone is charged the police send a fax to each and every reporter in the country telling them about it.

When you go into a courthouse, you can read the dockets which contain the name of every person who is scheduled to appear in court that day and the charges he or she is facing.

For the media to have found out about these charges, several things will have had to happen. First, his first court appearance must have already taken place. There is no reason to believe it has.

Second, a reporter would have had to read the docket and recognize the name. While there are some local media agencies that send reporters to the court houses to read dockets, this does not happen every day and the national media do not waste their time sending reporters to each and every courthouse every single day in order to read the dockets. So, there would have had to have been a local reporter in court that day, who saw and recognized the name, and who reported it, and THEN the national media would have picked up on it.

I suggest it is far more likely Rodriguez has not had his first court appearance yet, and the reason he came forward was because he knew that once he did, the media might find out about this.

No Gayle, you missed whatever needed hearing: that the opposition parties had not agreed on any collective approach to the viewing of detainee transfer files. Only now are they agreeing on a plan to do this.

The opposition parties never took the issue of detainee transfers seriously enough. Now, after prodding from the Speaker to come to terms with this, have they done so. The Conservatives likewise. Therefore cooperation was possible.

Harper never absolutely refused to negotiate. Harper always held and still holds the detainee transfer issue to be a complex one , to be a sensitive one on many fronts.

Yes, Harper was unbending in such belief and could not believe that the opposition parties played so carelessly with the subject at hand. Now that the opposition parties are going to be partially responsible for what comes out of the detainee transfer paperwork, they are starting to experience the seriousness of it all. Because at the bottom of it all, there remains the question which Harper has understood throughout: What to do with the information unravelled?

The opposition parties will now come to understand that reading into the paperwork is the least of their worries. What follows is the real juggernaut to overcome. If all the party leaders are mature enough, the juggernaut can be overcome. And if the public at large is capable of dealing with this in an adult manner also, so much the better.

Gayle, some days I wish I could be like you: to be simpleminded, to be utterly single focused

Your reasoning starts with an ending in sight and the ending is always the same: get rid of Harper.

Gayle, our current state of democracy isn't being undermined by the likes of Harper but is being undermined by the likes of you.
For your information: Harper is not a fundamental religious freak, but is a person who is able to understand religion as being a possible guide for coming to reasonable behaviour.

On the other hand, you and so many others like you, are no longer capable of holding reason as being inherently within. You are capable of placing reason outside of the self, as an independent entity. And such loss is not entirely yours, but is ours collectively to carry as a burden. Very tiresome indeed.

For a while I thought people just played it dumb. Now I'm certain some people don't know any better. And why debate with people who just don't know any better. What's the point other than wasting time.

This whole Macleans blogging site doesn't amount to much any longer. It's become a cliched site without debating anything.

If you want to believe that Derek Lee's portrayal of reality is good to go, then by all means, go for it. As far as I'm concerned, people like Derek Lee don't care for looking back and certainly aren't capable of thinking ahead in any meaningful way. And if you can't see that, don't worry about it: there are milliions more like you.

From your post that I queried: It certainly isn't a reality which can be commonly shared.

And then from your "current" post: And if you can't see that, don't worry about it: there are milliions more like you.

So I'm not sure if the reality that others have created, the one that you don't agree with, isn't commonly shared or is commonly shared.

Furthermore, I actually haven't made up my mind about Derek Lee and the webpage that indicated that he was involved in lobbying, mostly because there is some information that I am missing. I'll give you the questions if you are interested in answering.