Argus Posted May 19, 2010 Report Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) Quebec demands PM clear up abortion ambiguity' - National Assembly unanimously passes motion calling on Harper government to respect free access to procedure and halt cuts to womens groups If I were Harper I'd immediadely announce that henceforth the grants to all 400+ womens groups will be inviolate, and that the funds, in their entirety, will be deducted from funds previously earmarked for Quebec. And if they don't want to pay for it, then, like other welfare bums, they should shut their yaps and let their betters decide. Edited May 19, 2010 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 If I were Harper I'd immediadely announce that henceforth the grants to all 400+ womens groups will be inviolate, and that the funds, in their entirety, will be deducted from funds previously earmarked for Quebec. Why advising that to Harper (announce grants; but not pay)? He knows probably best in this country how to speak from both ends of his mouth. Take this very issue. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
fellowtraveller Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 Canada has not had a leader stupid enough to open the abortion debate for decades.It has nothing to do with personal or party opinion on the subject, but more that there are no votes to be gained by change or discussion. The current clamour is simply another media and Iggy driven attempt to gain traction on the Teflon PM, and again it fails. Quote The government should do something.
myata Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 Well, no, let me disagree here. Harper did change the long standing policy of this country. So what exactly is the meaning of the change? Does it indicate a change in the status quo - then reopening the debate - then all the questions associated with it (why; what; which)? Or if it does not indicate anything, when what is it supposed to indicate? Can't have it both ways, even if you're all teflon. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
fellowtraveller Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 Well, no, let me disagree here. Harper did change the long standing policy of this country. So what exactly is the meaning of the change? Does it indicate a change in the status quo - then reopening the debate - then all the questions associated with it (why; what; which)? Or if it does not indicate anything, when what is it supposed to indicate? Can't have it both ways, even if you're all teflon. What policy did he reverse? I live in Alberta, absolutely nothing has changed in access to abortion. It is easy and free. Quote The government should do something.
myata Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 What policy did he reverse? I live in Alberta, absolutely nothing has changed in access to abortion. It is easy and free. Oh, it's too long to explain, but it must be here somewhere, this or the other thread. No it's not about Alberta, but it must have implications for Alberta too because, as pointed out multiple times and by many, the reason for this change has never been unexplained rationally which leaves some of us puzzled(and worried about exactly what it is supposed to signify). Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Remiel Posted May 20, 2010 Report Posted May 20, 2010 And if they don't want to pay for it, then, like other welfare bums, they should shut their yaps and let their betters decide. Thanks for making it crystal clear that despite the facade of at least intelligent disagreeability, you are underneath still just a bigoted asshole. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.