FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: B as in B. S as in S.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Sorry to rip off Fr. Z. there, but I wrote to the local conservative candidate in my area (Canada is having an election) and I asked flat out what was his position on abortion.  Here is the reply:

Quote:Dear Mr. XXX,

I am responding to you at the request of Mr. XXX. The volume of
correspondence is so very great during this short election campaign that he
cannot personally respond. However he has explained his position on this
matter and asked that I convey this to you with his thanks for your inquiry.


As you are undoubtedly aware the current law governing abortion was enacted
under a liberal government. Mr. XXX recognizes that making such a decision
must clearly be enormously difficult for the woman and her family and
warrants significant councilling and support from the community, church and
state. He is fully supportive of easy availability of quality councilling
and support services to enable the woman, regardless of age, to reach a
decision which is in her best interests with every concern for the unborn
child. The woman's right to decide must be protected, not coerced in any way
and whatever her decision to provide proper medical and social support for
mother and child.

Should this law be brought before the House as a free vote Mr. XXX will
consider all the implications and will vote in accordance with his
conscience and moral views. He hopes you will honour him with you vote and
make him your representative in the 41st parliament.

XXX
for the XXX Campaign

Yeah, Eastern Tories suck eggs. I emailed my local Tory and he left me a voicemail saying it's status quo on abortion. Booh. I'll be drawing unborn babies in the ballot circles on Easter Monday. Literally.
"The woman's right to decide must be protected" basically answers your question, doesn't it?  There is not a good party to vote for anymore, same as in the US.  Tories suck eggs no matter what part of the country you are from Bakuryokuso.  In the past few elections I have not been voting for a party but voting the best choice to defeat the worst.  As far as I'm concerned another Harper government, especially a majority would threaten Canadian sovereignty.  Before the last election I was so concerned about it I wrote this hub titled "North American Union & Canada".
http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

A couple of months ago someone left a comment on my hub saying "The North American Union is HERE" and left this Feb 5, 2011 report titled "Harper, Obama agree to integrate border, creating security and trade perimeter"
http://www.canada.com/business/Harper+Ob...story.html

So I found this petition to "Say no to North American perimeter security!" and posted it as a comment on my hub.
http://www.canadians.org/action/2011/bor...urity.html

The petition gets sent to Harper, Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe and it says this,
Quote:Dear Prime Minister,

You do not have my support to sign a new perimeter security deal with the United States. It was wrong of you to agree to such a plan without consulting with Canadians first. Before anything else is said or done on this deal you need to seek a real public mandate. Open up the deal to public and parliamentary debate or seek an election on the issue.

Sincerely,

Harper does not have the right to do this, especially without a majority.  Ignatieff and Layton are right when they say that Harper is acting like a dictator with his minority government.

Neither Harper or Duceppe replied to the petition.  Both Ignatieff and Layton replied reassuring me that Canadian sovereignty would not be threatened with a government led by either of them.

If you are at all concerned about Canadian sovereignty with another Harper government you may want to use that petition.  And vote wisely.
So who will you be voting for this time round Mike?

Can't say I trust the Libs to defend Canadian sovereignty when they've done more than any party in the last 40 years to weaken it.
I'll be voting for the MP in my riding that has the best chance to beat out the Conservative MP.  Like Danny Williams says ABC, anything but Conservative.  That's saying something about Harper when a provincial Conservative MPP as well liked as Danny Williams says anybody but Harper.  As far as I'm concerned Harper is the most untrustworthy politician that we have had in Canada since Mulroney.

Well I would not be concerned about Canadian sovereignty if Ignatieff or Layton led the next government.  This is how Ignatieff's office replied to the petition.
Quote:Dear Sir/Madame :

On behalf of Michael Ignatieff, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email regarding Stephen Harper’s secret perimeter security negotiations with the United States.  Mr. Ignatieff recently wrote an op-ed for the Globe and Mail in which he outlines our concerns with this deal. You may read it here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin...le1901070/ or on the liberal party website here: http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/dont...vereignty/.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Leader of the Opposition.


Yours sincerely,
Office of Michael Ignatieff

This is how Layton's office replied to the petition.

Quote:Thank you for writing to me on the issue Stephen Harper's proposed cross-border
security deal with the United States. I am glad to see Canadians getting engaged by
writing to their elected representatives on this important issue.

Like you, we believe that Canadians have a right to expect that their government will
be open and transparent about major agreements so that the voices of Canadian
citizens can be heard and the government held accountable if it acts against the best
interests of the public.

The New Democratic Party has major concerns with this security plan, particularly in
light of the fact that the Harper government has been negotiating this major
agreement behind closed doors. As a matter of principle, we are currently fighting to
make sure that Canadians are allowed to know what's being negotiated. We further
believe that this deal needs to be reviewed by Parliament and we will fight to make
sure that this happens.

What we know is that Stephen Harper has made it clear that his government is willing
to give away whatever it takes to get a deal-just like the Conservatives did with
softwood lumber under NAFTA. Frankly, this should come as no surprise. The last time
a Conservative government negotiated a deal with the U.S. that promised trade access,
they gave away Canada's oil and handed U.S. companies the right to sue Canada if we
pass laws they don't like.

Given this track record, we are not optimistic about the Conservatives' ability to
negotiate a deal that actually benefits Canadians and doesn't hurt Canadian
industries and jobs in our border communities.

Please know that our party takes this issue very seriously and will continue to
monitor it closely.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write.

All the best,


Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats
 
(04-13-2011, 11:13 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]I'll be voting for the MP in my riding that has the best chance to beat out the Conservative MP.  Like Danny Williams says ABC, anything but Conservative.  That's saying something about Harper when a provincial Conservative MPP as well liked as Danny Williams says anybody but Harper.  As far as I'm concerned Harper is the most untrustworthy politician that we have had in Canada since Mulroney.

That's a bit melodramatic.  Harper has basically been governing like a Red Tory and we wouldn't have seen anything very different from any of the other major parties.  The Liberal, NDP, and Green candidates in my riding are aggressively pro-abortion...the Conservative candidate is at least passively pro-life.  He's getting my vote, and we'll have another Tory minority come election day.  Thanks for the bill, Iggy.
Wow, he sounds like Diamond Joe Quimby

"Let no one say that whichever way the wind blows, that I do not blow with it."
"at least passively pro-life" means pro-choice.  Obviously we'd all like to see the end of abortions but as we see from the Conservative replies above it's a shame that it clearly is not an issue with any of the parties during this election.

On the other hand here's another petition titled "No, We Will Not Join Fortress North America, Mr. Harper".  On the right hand of the page there is a video that clearly shows that Harper's idea to purchase the F35 stealth attack bombers are not needed, too expensive and actually puts Canadian security at more risk.  Canadian security spending is out of step with NATO, while NATO spending is decreasing Canadian spending is increasing under a Harper government.  This is what the petition says.
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=7135 
Quote:Prime Minister Harper:

I strongly oppose any perimeter security deal that deepens the integration of our security and military forces and national policies with those of the United States.

Even the name of their party is an oxymoron.  Conservative?  They are not conservative at all.  Canadian debt has been added predominately by Conservative governments in the past, including Harper's government.

[Image: shinyb.jpg]

[Image: corporateb.jpg] 

Don't forget that Harper is quoted as saying "You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it".

Harper has called himself a Libertarian in the past.  Libertarian policy certainly has not improved living standards in the US.  Why would we want it here in Canada?

[Image: LikeUSb.jpg]
   
Paul Martin balanced budgets by stealing money from EI.

Canada is left leaning enough so I'm comfortable with someone like Harper who leans to the right and doesn't trample all over provincial powers like the Libs do. Libs give reasons for Quebec to separate, Tories reduce them.
(04-14-2011, 12:57 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]"at least passively pro-life" means pro-choice.  Obviously we'd all like to see the end of abortions but as we see from the Conservative replies above it's a shame that it clearly is not an issue with any of the parties during this election.

No, I meant that at the very least he's passively pro-life - I've asked for clarification before, and I'm fairly certain he's pro-life, but I didn't want to overstate the case.  When my mom's pro-life group was told to leave parliament hill, he's the one who personally escorted them back, brought them right into the building, and had his picture taken with them.  Sure, it could have been a political move, but why vote for one of the other candidates who are aggressively pro-abortion?  Just because they want to scrap spending on some airplanes?
Pages: 1 2 3