takeanumber

Should we review all the broken promises of the Alberta Tories since we're dusting off classics from 1992/1993?

I don't think that the Senate can go on and pass it should the government fall a half hour later. I know of a dozen or so bills that died in the Senate when an election was called. I know that when the house comes back, they vote a ton just to get things back into the Senate...so I really don't think that it's the case that you can get it through the Senate in time before the second vote happens. So I think I'll stand, until I'm proven wrong for sure, that a vote against the NDP ammendment is really a vote against the entire budget.

I havn't attacked you for your generalizations, but I have certainly attacked your statements. I believe you're quoted as calling Belinda either a prostitute or a whore....which one was it? And this was well before the Liberals had ever made this an issue. So Reagan, if you didn't call her a whore already, do you think it's alright to refer to any woman as a whore?

Why sure! Golly Gee! If Margaret Wente says something, and she's backed up by Christie Blatchford, then it MUST BE ALRIGHT TO CALL A WOMAN A WHORE THEN! Gosh, thanks for informing me. I thought that respect for women was something basic, you know, a trait of good people. But since 2 (two) women, representing ALL women say it's okay, and two strong right wing women at that, who have never, ever, ever have had to put THEIR foot in their mouth, say that it's alright, then golly gee, it must be okay. (And that was sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious) I don't care what 2 right wing women, or forty right wing women say...that kind of language directed towards a woman is wrong. It just is. ---- I have no problem with people complaining about her crossing the floor. My problem is the MANNER. Is it ever acceptable to call a woman a whore? If you answer yes, I'm sure that you're mother is proud of you. I sure as hell was raised better than that. And Conservatives have the gaul to say that they defend 'traditional values'. You sure as hell don't defend, nor represent, MY traditional values. So tell me August, is it acceptable to ever call a woman a whore? While your at it, perhaps you can tell us if it's ever alright to use other slurs...racial and those against homosexuals? If not, then what's the difference between using a word that is hateful of women, and a word that is hurtful of another minority. And, if you can't resolve that contradiction, then you really, really don't get it.

See, a demonstration of the logic that I predicted: downplay the fact that the cons are demeaning women, and then blame the media. And pointing out that Brison was called a 'whore' doesn't make the fact that Belinda was called a 'whore' and 'dipstick' any more right. Be outraged at Stronach, but to use derogatory words towards women like that...classless, crass, and it shows the true nature of Conservatives.

You really don't 'get it' do you Reagan? "Prostitute" and "whore" are derogatory towards women in general, and you simply don't get it, nor do many of your Con friends. And I suppose you're going to spin this some way, instead of acknowledging the faults in your attitude, you'll blame the reflection of your attitude on the media. Simply disgusting. And what's worse: you don't understand why it's disgusting. You'll never win government bashing 52% of the population.

Well, just when you thought it couldnt' get any more pathetic: it did. The Cons, who negotiated the first budget and then sat down (refusing to vote for it), now say that they're going to vote for the initial budget bill. The reason? The Atlantic Accord. However, when it comes to the NDP ammendment, they're going to vote against it. The reason? To bring down the government. Alright, they're trying to have it both ways, and that's alright. However, they can't have it both ways, because if they vote to bring down the government right after the initial budget bill, the budget doesn't get passed at all. In effect, a vote against the NDP bill is effectively a vote against the entire budget. So, two questions: 1. As if the flip-flop isn't bad enough, do you think that anybody will be fooled by this tactic? 2. How does this look in light of all the shenanigans last week? Can they possibly screw up any more?

It's funny how the Cons demonstrated Stronach's point: She's been called a whore, a dipstick and effectively a stupid person, each by different conservatives. The right-wing press has been printing very sexist editorials. It's disgusting, and demonstrates the attitudes that she faced in the party. ------ How can her defection be interpreted as ambition? According to the Conservative press, the libs are going down... ----- If you thumb back to the initial pages, I predicted that the Cons, instead of addressing the real issue: their inability to appeal to youth, women and urban voters -- focus on attacking the defector. Well, that's fine with me. After reading and listening to conservative attitudes towards women, I'm convinced that she left for those reasons, and for national unity.

I've been really dismayed by an Alberta Conservative MLA calling her a whore. (Source: CFCN). (www.cfcn.ca) It's no wonder why so many women don't feel comfy with the Conservatives. They just don't get it.

I'm guessing they'll be eating sausage.

Name calling again? ----- Agreed.

Nah. If you don't want people to critique your patriatism, perhaps you shouldn't make statements like that. Just saying, I won't attack your patriatism, but many can and probably will futhur down this thread.

Sorry if I implied all married women. I know from the studies that married women are far more likely to vote for the Cons than other women. When you run some segmentation analysis, you discover that it's tied to attitudes towards social programs and 'traditional' family values. Namely, married women see a large portion of their household income leave their house to fund social programs that they do not benefit from -- the result is that they vote for parties that are antithetical to social programs, ie. Conservatives. That's where the chip originates from. So, to retract and restate, there is a propensity for married women to vote Conservative.

The Conservative Media (CFCN) is calling it "Belinda's Betrayal" and portraying it as though she was bought off. Typical.

I think this whole thing will really focus in on how Harper "doesn't get it", and the party "doesn't get it." ------------ On Peter McKay: Got Credibility? I'd love to have McKay come forward and give a talk about loyalty. It would be delicious!

Same sex marriage. Mounties and the Turban. Abortion. The involvement of the Church in the state (See: Conservative participation at the World Christian Political Party Convention which coincided with the Republican convention, speeches in the House.) Meh. I think they do. Many people here agree with me, clearly they're not irrational, infantile, and illogical. The truth does sting though, so I'm sure you'd find them insulting. Yes. They're all tarred. They've admitted it and are cleaning it up. The Cons have never admitted to the corruption under Mulroney -- which is worse? 2 Billion a month flows out of Toronto and never comes back. Don't you think that they're hard done by? You've just demonstrated the contradiction right there. Good job. You ought to know what I'm talking about here. The momment I identify an issue, you'll attack the issue, not the contradiction; so, how about you attack the contradiction? They sure do. You demonstrated the contradiction wonderfully. Yes, as Conservative 'principles' are so solid, water-tight, and contradiction free. The truth varies by who is telling it. That poster is derogatory towards Italian-Canadians. I believe that one of the defining characteristics of an angry conservative is a marked lack of empathy...the inability to see anything from anybody else's point of view. As for Eleanor Caplan or Sheila Copps: Martin distanced himself from her, and I recall conservatives applauding that. I havn't called anybody a name. My statements are general to be true, but I think that they've held up pretty well to your assault. See, when you fail to attack the root of the contradiction, or restate it, you resort to insulting all of them -- which is fine...that's typical of the discourse that happens here. ------- So, many of you have demonstrated that much of what I said in the initial post is in fact correct, through your arguements. I thank Reagan especially for making some of the most rational statements, and Sweal, for hitting upon key points.

Indeed, I thought her blasting Harper for aligning with the Bloc was interesting.

Alright Reagan, since I tend to believe in people, I'll believe you that that is what you intended to say with the Hilton comment. ----------- Does this defection make any difference to the angry men who typically vote for the Conservative party? No. But we already know how angry men and their angry wives are going to vote. They're going to vote for the Cons. And I don't think that it's just about the scandal that they're angry about. They've been angry for a very long time. Married women have a chip on their shoulder about a number of programs. Certain demographics of men: namely low education Western, religious men, have been angry since the 1960s about, well, everything...the direction of the country, the state of the society, and probably the biggest thing: the loss of their primacy in society. They've watched the Charter eat away at their priveledged status, and naturally, that makes them angry. So, that's fine, they'll vote for the Cons, that's their right. Now, what about the other people? Well, this is where Belinda comes in. See, we knew that many people are angry at Liberals for the mess they've caused. However, things are pretty good in the country right now: it's growing, wages are good, and new programs are comming in. The goal becomes: how do we keep the Liberals in check (humble) while cleaning up the mess and ensuring that it never happens again, while ensuring the status quo? Belinda's defection is important: people who want the status quo on social progress will feel better voting for the Liberals now, and Belinda is an outsider that can clean up the mess. Combine this with another minority government with a seemingly imminent Conservative losses in Ontario, and you have a stable NDP-Liberal coalition that will result in the fufillment of the goal. The cons goal: to reverse social progress, is directly at odds with the will of the majority, and it's always easier to attack the person who embodies those values than to address the real problem.

I agree with Kimmy: In hte past, I have been attacked by my friends on the left for my admiration of Belinda Stronach. She stood up for her values, especially on women, youth, international competitiveness and same sex marriage, and you know, I remember seeing her cowed. Well -- those are important issues. And I think Kimmy got it right when she points out that Belinda was a big bridge to un-married women. The cons do very well among married women, but their standing with single women is going to be very much in trouble now, especially in Ontario, now that Belinda is gone. So...these references to anybody who has different concerns than they do is 'unprincipled' to Stephen Harper. Well Harper, I think you've managed to put the issue of 'women' on the front burner here...good luck with that. Moreover, the appointment of an 'outsider' is important. Brison has been terrific when it comes to cleaning up Public works....imagine... a year without a scandal. I'm very optimistic about Belinda cleaning up after Gomery. Such a terrific idea.

"no Grand principles, just ambition" pfft. Julie Van Dusen asked her directly: will you run for the Liberal leadership? She replied "No" without hesitation. As a moderate myself, I understand her discomfort, and I believe her. ----- I don't think Harper helped himself during that press conference. It was brutal.

What is the true meaning of 'prostitute' and 'paris hilton'? What's the intent of those statements? Hmmmmmm. It sure gives me pause.

Again, demonstration of hatred, and general disrespect for her gender. ----- There's no twisting going on...I'm quoting you directly, and there's not taking out of context here. ---- Harper is bashing her...going very negative. Now delving into their relationship and commeting on McKay's feelings...after she said explicitely that it was a personal matter. No honour.

Harper feels "relieved". I bet. He doesn't have somebody so 'unprincipled' challenging him.

Spoken like a true Conservative. I wonder why, with attitudes towards women like that, why women don't vote for the Con party, and why Belinda left. Bravo, thank you for proving my point.

Belinda was told STFU on same sex marriage. I remember that well. In the interview, she did in fact bring up her issues to Harper, and I assume that the response was STFU. Huge mistake Harper. You had to moderate. Losing both Brison and Stronach...it's a pattern of moderates leaving the party. I agree with you Kimmy. The defection makes me more likely to support the Liberals...just because she is committed to cleaning it up.