YEGmann

One more pro-liberal media crap. It was not a media, it was a certain represenative of the second oldest profession. 1. Who was the reporter? 2. Why did the citizens boo him? Somehow these two questions are not reported. You can bet the devil is in details!

You are funny. Scotty gave you an example where Harper is a universe better than Liberals in this aspect, but you are still repeating your mantras. With no facts.

This depends on what one means "to be associated". Does taking an interview mean "association"?

Sure. The guy is happy he's achived his goal. Where is the "abortion issue" here? No. His own words: "we used to defund Planned Parenthood, because it has been absolute disgrace that this organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said. Where is the "abortion issue" here? Where is the "abortion issue" here? We have words of the PP representative from London, Mr. Bell. The PP asked for funding for the business not related the "abortion issue". Every event has many facets. Interpretation based on assumptions that contardict known facts is conspiracy.

"Trost spoke at a Saskatchewan Pro-life Association convention in Humboldt on Saturday" April 16. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/trost-under-fire-over-planned-parenthood-remarks-000000423.html

If you show the opposite I will change my statement.

Brad Trost never said his group petitioned the government against the PP funding because of the abortion issue. There is a first hand evidence that the PP application for funding had nothing to do with the abortion issue. Therefore not providing them with funding (if this is true) has nothing to do with the issue. Puting 2+2 without looking on the facts on the surface is a clear indication of playing conspiracy game.

By promtly editing your post you were reading my mind. This is exactly a conspiracy approach from your side. Using this logics, government cannot stop funding a single organization without being accused of the "hidden agenda". When the opposition is using conspiracy theories, it is very difficult to argue, because more and more conspiracy arguments pop up. It is like trying to speak to a deaf and blind person. Then analysing someone's action why not to apply the Occam razor principle? Maybe there is a simpler explanation? Economical? Cost/benefit analysis? In normal logics one should not prove what does not exist. This is an obligation of accuser to prove that something took place. The pro-liberal, anti-conservative media along with the opposition are acting just opposite. Throw an accusation without evidence and let conservatives clear themselves.

Thus we have a fresh example of a fear spreading story completely fabricated by anti-conservative journalists. As usual, a serial liberal attempt to create a conservative scandal has been busted.

I remember they also talked about economy and deficit reduction.

No, we do not need to believe that the funding will be granted. But not providing funding can be caused by a thousand of reasons not related to abortion issue. The PP is not the only organization asking for Canadian taxpayers' money. There are literally thousands of them. Some do receive funding some do not. Our budget is tight right now. I cannot comment whether a year for review and approval is normal. Judging from that we haven't heard any outcry before, it seems OK.

Didn't Harper and most conservaties voted against that bill?

Harper avoided a direct answer in the process of answering the question. It can be called funny, but at least it wasn't miserable. This requires skills.

Neither Brad Trost nor any Conservative ever said the PP was defunded "because it supports abortion".

If reading not only CBC it is absolutely clear that Brad Trost is speaking about his personal position. It is him who thinks why the PP should be defunded, he admits that Harper and the party do not share his view of importance of this pro-life stuff. He never exceeded the personal level. But the media presents the situation in just opposite interpretation, i.e., this is a position of the Conservative Party.

OK. This is his personal opinion. Though we do not have a context, I suspect he said more. But hey, wait a minute! Shouldn't the question have sounded "Why it was defunded"? My point is that it is the pro-liberal media assuming defunding (if any) is related to supporting abortion. There can be thousand more reasons.

Can you prove this, Molly? Do you have Brad Trost's own words? What we have now, Brad told about another issue, foreign NGO not receiving Canadian money. The Canadian chapter of this organization does not have its funding cut. This is liberal-supporting media puts the words "because of abortion" into Brad's mouth. The main feature of conspiracy theories is that they cannot be disproved by normal logics, because a conspirologist will use even more explanations based on conspiracy. Nevertheless, Harper practically has proved he will not raise the abortion problem review.

Peter tried. The same level of pressure as on Ignatieff. Harper was tougher. This is called to be an experienced politician.

Contrary to you, I do not speculate, I do know that the company dissmissed the APTN claim about the "20% clause". Ms. McPherson contract doesn't contain one. Her compensation is standard, i.e. based on her performance, her contract says.

Wow! You changed your song! Good! Just a reminder before you stated affirmatively Isn't this assigning a guilt to the man before any investigation is finished? Hasn't RCMP investigated Helena Guergis "for a reason"?

How does Harper know whether the guy is innocent? In this particular case the family wants an accelerated legal process and they have received a response from the Mexican government, that the process is going in accordance with Mexican laws, they have to wait.

You mean it is a responsibility of the Prime Minister to contact family of every Canadian having troubles abroad? I disagree. I think we have Foreign Affairs for such situations, embasies and consulates. And OK, say Harper met the family, what should he do then? Talk to Mexican president and demand accelerated trial? This is insane. It will be outright embarassment (we already know the response of the Mexican government). Liberals will be the first who will be crying bloody murder "Harper interferes into affairs of an independant country!" This is why I agree with you that Ignatieff is cheap here. This stuff is done quietly by diplomats.

How is it Harper's business? The sad story is three-year long. Mexican govermnent is responsive but it follows Mexican laws. Why did media make it news yesterday?

The idea of a special ballot is, in my understanding, to vote for a candidate in the riding of your residence when you are away from it. If students voted for the candidates in the riding of U of G, this is violation of election rules.

I hope you read EC statement. Do you realize that Election Canada found nothing because they did not investigate the incident? And we have a precedent of Mr. Maynard investigating himself in a very questionable case.