Following their attack on 2005 Andrew Scheer, the Liberals hypocrisy is being thrown back in their faces.

As I noted earlier, the Liberals are trying to campaign against the Andrew Scheer that existed 14 years ago in 2005, rather than focus on their own record.

By releasing a video of Scheer from 2005 where he discusses his then-opposition to same-sex marriage, the Liberals have brought attention to the fact that many of their own MPs – including some current MPs, expressed opposition to same-sex marriage as well.

On Twitter, the Conservatives shared examples of that Liberal hypocrisy:

“We’re just gonna leave these here … (1/9)”

We’re just gonna leave these here … (1/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“Although traditional marriage is not perfect it remains the single best relationship in which men relate to women, in which women relate to men and in which children relate to parents.” @RodgerCuzner

(2/9)”

"Although traditional marriage is not perfect it remains the single best relationship in which men relate to women, in which women relate to men and in which children relate to parents." @RodgerCuzner (2/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“When entering into marriage, [it’s] based on 4 pillars:

1 each is of a certain age

2 they are not family

3 marriage is only between 2 people

4 marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

To compromise any of these principles do we not compromise the institution?”

@RodgerCuzner

(3/9)”

"When entering into marriage, [it's] based on 4 pillars:

1 each is of a certain age

2 they are not family

3 marriage is only between 2 people

4 marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

To compromise any of these principles do we not compromise the institution?" @RodgerCuzner (3/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“To add common law homosexual relationships to common law heterosexual relationships and say that they are the same thing in my view is a fallacy.” @JohnMcKayLib (4/9)”

“To add common law homosexual relationships to common law heterosexual relationships and say that they are the same thing in my view is a fallacy." @JohnMcKayLib (4/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“For thousands of years it’s been the view… that marriage was something about sex and something about babies. No marriage, no babies; no babies, no marriage. It is not much more complicated than that.” @JohnMcKayLib(5/9)”

"For thousands of years it's been the view… that marriage was something about sex and something about babies. No marriage, no babies; no babies, no marriage. It is not much more complicated than that." @JohnMcKayLib (5/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“Marriage according to the Court of Appeals is merely a love institution, two persons with a pulse having sex.”@JohnMcKayLib (6/9)”

“Marriage according to the Court of Appeals is merely a love institution, two persons with a pulse having sex.” @JohnMcKayLib (6/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“By dumbing down marriage to two persons with a pulse having sex, we have destroyed the conventional and replaced it with the contractual.”@JohnMcKayLib (7/9)”

“By dumbing down marriage to two persons with a pulse having sex, we have destroyed the conventional and replaced it with the contractual.” @JohnMcKayLib (7/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. I do not think I can make it any shorter or clearer than that.”@JohnMcKayLib(8/9″

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. I do not think I can make it any shorter or clearer than that.” @JohnMcKayLib (8/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

“I lament the semantic distinction being drawn … between religious & civil marriage, as if there are two separate meanings… Civil marriage, between a man & a woman, means as much to some as religious marriage, between a man & a woman, does to others.”@ScarpaleggiaLSL(9/9)”

"I lament the semantic distinction being drawn … between religious & civil marriage, as if there are two separate meanings… Civil marriage, between a man & a woman, means as much to some as religious marriage, between a man & a woman, does to others." @ScarpaleggiaLSL (9/9) — Conservative Party (@CPC_HQ) August 22, 2019

Of course, for the Liberals and their establishment media enablers, it’s fine for the Liberals to ‘evolve’ on issues, but Conservatives don’t get that same opportunity.

The hypocrisy is staggering, and the fact that the Conservatives have made clear there will be no change to marriage laws is simply being ignored.

This is yet more confirmation that the Liberals are basing their entire campaign on deception and divisiveness.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – Twitter

***

Canada needs independent voices like Spencer Fernando now more than ever. If you want to support Spencer, you can contribute through PayPal at the link below:

TRENDING NOW



















0 0 vote Article Rating

Like this: Like Loading...