Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Wednesday's M312 Report

On the Twitter #M312 timeline there are a few new players, some yet to be blocked by the Woody Wankers.

One such, Voice of Reason, tweeted at Stephen Woodworth himself:
‪@WoodworthMP‬ ‪#M312‬ You do of course realize that you are becoming single-issued. What would be your favoured outcome of this debate?‪#cdnpoli‬
And s/he got the typical weaselly reply.
‪@V_of_tReason‬ ‪#cdnpoli‬ My favoured outcome of ‪#M312‬ would be that Parliament&Cdns are better informed abt the implicatns of S223(1)
Voice of Reason immediately recognized this for the faux-innocent dodge that it is and returned with:

Rev Paperboy jumped in and a genius hashtag was born.

I applauded the good Rev's genius and asked him to use the #M312 hashtag. He said he was a tad busy but told me to feel free.

Then Voice of Reason spelled it out for the dimmest of fetus fetishists.

Surely the smart creative people who read DJ! can come up with some other fun snarky questions for the pro-M312 crowd to be tagged with #justaskingaquestion or #JAQingOff for short(er). (Goes well with Woodworth's Wank, doesn't it?)

In related news, every day certain people spam-tweet MPs and other politicians with one or both of two scripted tweets. Today I noticed that the same MPs and politicians are targeted each day. Are they programmed? Are they bots?

And speaking of bots, another new player is M312FETUSBOT, who is totally pro-M312 and a demanding little twerp to boot.


With all this fun stuff going on and more and more uncomfortable questions being lobbed at the fetus fetishists, I'm thinking that Woody regrets swapping his spot. He probably had a better chance of sneaking his sneaky motion past MPs in June.

The second hour of debate is on September 21, with the vote on September 26.

If you don't do Twitter, you might consider busting a cherry for this one. ;-)


Pseudz said...

Jolly saucy gazette, Fern Hill . . . I'll bet they're watching you pretty closely.

Voice of tReason said...

I can't take full credit for "JAQing off" as it is frequently used in discussions at the James Randy Educational Foundation.
As for Woodworth, I'm mostly just taking a position against him raising the debate. He wasn't elected on this and it was never part of the party platform. For Stephen, it's all based on his personal beliefs. A point he vehemently denies.

fern hill said...

I'd never heard of the Randi Foundation. Thanks for that.

And Woodworth indeed is a slippery weasel. Thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. Well, maybe in the CON caucus he is, but not in any other room in Canada.

fern hill said...

And further to that, Voice of tReason hath a blog, which is going in our blog roll.

Sorry about missing the 't'. Will not do it again.

Sixth Estate said...

Randi is, mostly, great. I wonder if some aspect of fetus fetishism would qualify for his million dollar prize.

(The prize goes to the first person to offer genuine and verifiable evidence of a supernatural phenomenon.)

Anonymous said...

Hi Fern,

Rick Hiebert from BDBO here.

As you know, there is a widespread belief by pro-lifers that abortion causes collateral damage to the ladies who have them. Rightly or wrongly they think it.

Woodworth thinks or hopes that such damage will need to be acknowleged under questioning by anyone brought before the panel. Thus having hearings on abortion will bring this out and cause a growing popular animus against the procedure that could help with passing a pro-life law.

He won't tell you this. I just did. But I think you knew this already because of your various posts questioning "Who will your witnesses be?"

Such hearings could also be used by the pro-choice side to argue that the Canadian status quo on abortion is all right, but Woodworth is so confident of his point of view that he'll chance that.

People who are fairly neutral on the issue of abortion may not object to the Woodworths on the Hill coming out and saying "We want a means to build support for the pro-life side by providing witnesses and evidence." Why doesn't Woodworth just come out and say that?

You may say "Well, duh, what else would you expect?" But I feel that being coy and cute and playing the innocent inquiring MP is just as annoying here by these MPs as it was in the case of Roxanne's Law.


deBeauxOs said...

Thanks for that Rick.

I don't comment as much as I should at Bene Diction Blogs On where you're a constant contributor, so I'd like to say here how much I appreciate the quality of research in the posts about the right-wing dominionist elements in christian groups that are published there.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the kind words...


Post a comment