tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post8946665270455413655..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: And now, two troublemakers that need no introduction ...CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-72305378722849552072008-05-09T09:00:00.000-04:002008-05-09T09:00:00.000-04:003x + 2 = 203x + 2 = 20¢rÄbG®äŠŠhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16307684311454262849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-36870716898693501852008-05-08T20:34:00.000-04:002008-05-08T20:34:00.000-04:00francis walsingham = one trick ponyfrancis walsingham = one trick ponyliberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-71838929731440472212008-05-07T11:36:00.000-04:002008-05-07T11:36:00.000-04:00A little more info on these ~cough~ people Domain ...A little more info on these ~cough~ people<BR/><BR/> Domain abortionbreastcancer.ca<BR/>Status: EXIST<BR/>Organization: LifeCanada<BR/>Date approved: 2005/04/13<BR/>Last changed: 2008/02/06<BR/>Renewal Date: 2010/04/13<BR/>Registrar: BareMetal.com inc<BR/>Description: Educational Organization<BR/>DNS1: ns1.cjamesrun.com<BR/>DNS2: ns2.cjamesrun.com<BR/><BR/>Administrative Contact<BR/><BR/>Name: Carroll Rees<BR/>Job Title: Executive Director<BR/>Postal Address: LifeCanada<BR/>376 Churchill Avenue North<BR/>Suite 310<BR/>Ottawa ON K1Z 5C3 Canada<BR/>Phone: 613-722-1552<BR/>Fax: 613-722-2201<BR/>Email: carroll@lifecanada.org<BR/><BR/>Technical Contact<BR/><BR/>Name: Karen Young<BR/>Job Title: Office Manager<BR/>Postal Address: LifeCanada<BR/>376 Churchill Avenue North<BR/>Suite 310<BR/>Ottawa ON K1Z 5C3 Canada<BR/>Phone: 613-722-1552<BR/>Fax: 613-722-2201<BR/>Email: karen@lifecanada.org<BR/><BR/>Karen Young <BR/><BR/>http://www.lifecanada.org/html/newsletter/Vol5/no6/MakingaCaseforLife.html<BR/><BR/>She bitches and moans about the Pro-Choice side winning because they appeal to the emotional side. Read her article it is nothing but emotional blackmail on their part. Of course that is completely different isn't it.<BR/><BR/>Of course the classic is the Doctor Suess Pro-Life arguement, Horton Hears a Fetus from Carroll Rees.<BR/><BR/>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081002.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Whatever Dr. Seuss's intentions may have been, his widow Audrey Geisel, who is a supporter of Planned Parenthood, abortion and the homosexual movement, has been very upset by pro-life interpretations of the phrase "A person's a person no matter how small". She criticized Action Life Ottawa (ALO) in 2001 for using the phrase with a picture of an 8-week old fetus on a pro-life poster that was put up in Ottawa Catholic churches.<BR/><BR/>In a January 29, 2001 report by the National Post, Geisel's San Francisco lawyer Cathy Bencieengo stated, "We don't want to take a position one way or the other, but this is not an area in which Dr. Seuss participates." She also demanded that ALO remove the Seuss phrase from the poster.<BR/><BR/>Carroll Rees, a spokesperson for Action Life, stated in a news report, "We didn't think it was a problem, as long as it was being used for teaching purposes-and we're a non-profit organization, we're not selling posters, and we gave credit to him." ALO was pleased that the issue was brought to the media spot light, thereby drawing added attention to the pro-life cause.<BR/><BR/>National Organizer of Campaign Life Coalition, Mary Ellen Douglas, commented on "Horton Hears a Who", saying, "The parallels to the life issue are fairly obvious in the story because Horton is aware of these people that the rest of his comrades don't seem to notice. And for us as a pro-life movement, we've spent the last 30 some years trying to get the general population to see the unborn child in the womb as being really there, as being truly human. They can't shout from the womb. We're the only voice for them.""Zorpheoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09618889126077232837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38325409618343422762008-05-07T11:15:00.000-04:002008-05-07T11:15:00.000-04:00Oh yeah?Oh <A HREF="http://www.krylon.com/" REL="nofollow">yeah?</A>JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458917081261136618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-64896616631431636052008-05-07T10:10:00.000-04:002008-05-07T10:10:00.000-04:00Just take Hwy. 8. The extra time it takes is worth...Just take Hwy. 8. The extra time it takes is worth it to not see that thing. And I hear that Kintore is nice this time of year. Not that any of us go out that way.<BR/><BR/>And if you are out in the west end of town and see <A HREF="http://bp0.blogger.com/_vHSoe0CdlQs/R__rWZ8mVgI/AAAAAAAABRU/_PfppbQ-ZwQ/s1600-h/IMG_4303.JPG" REL="nofollow">this </A>German Shepherd, honk and wave.David Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05891790923170327958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-8548877666669647952008-05-07T10:01:00.000-04:002008-05-07T10:01:00.000-04:00We have one of those annoying billboards in my tow...We have one of those <A HREF="http://90percenttrue.com/2008/04/abortion-breast-cancer/" REL="nofollow">annoying billboards</A> in my town, too.<BR/><BR/>I love the abortionbreastcancer.ca's deconstruction of the 2004 Lancet study, too. Fifteen studies that showed an ABC link were excluded for the following non-scientific reasons:<BR/><BR/>a. “principal investigators ... could not be traced”<BR/>b. “original data could not be retrieved”<BR/>c. “researchers declined to take part in the collaboration”<BR/>d. “principal investigators judged their own information on induced abortion to be unreliable” (even though they had gone through peer review and been published) or<BR/>e. no reason at all.<BR/><BR/>B and D sound pretty reasonable, and even A is understandable. C is no fault of the Lancet researchers, and E looks like something the ABC site just made up. <BR/><BR/>But apparently, according to the abc.ca folk, once something has been published in the literature, it is always and forever true. Which is why the make statements like this: <BR/><BR/>"It is left out of the debate even though over 50 scientific studies have documented the association in medical journals, <B>the first as early as 1957.</B>"<BR/><BR/>They're just like creationist, finding something old and out dated that conflicts with current knowledge and shouting, "See? Science already solved that one!!"Cody Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05401973890767631344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-23152377891425618132008-05-07T05:05:00.000-04:002008-05-07T05:05:00.000-04:00whatever happened to our truth in advertising laws...whatever happened to our truth in advertising laws?Rev.Paperboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561796588927776371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-50293469302357774322008-05-07T04:43:00.000-04:002008-05-07T04:43:00.000-04:00CC, I think, for the sake of your eyes and a lot o...CC, I think, for the sake of your eyes and a lot of confused women, we need to arrange an "accident" with about 600 gallons of black paint...Dana Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.com