Women Abandon Conservatives

Rovik · October 21, 2006

Quite possibly. Young men are pretty stupid. They tend to grow out of it, though. And they tend, when older, to be less sentimental than women. Sentimentalism has its uses. I can get pretty sentimental at times, myself, but it's not something that should affect your vote.

Sentimentality and empathy are very important in the scheme of things. These traits, including intelligence, separate us from animals. When I see border-line poverty, when I see inequality, when I see unfairness, when I see the environment been contaminated, when I see monies going to rich corporations when many people in this country are struggling to survive day by day, then yes, sentimentality and emphahy will impact on my vote. And i disagree with your assumption about men, not all men become less sentimental, not all men become more stubborn and close-minded as you suggest.

I wonder why it is no one wonders about that. I mean, when female numbers were down it was a national crisis which called for task forces of educational and sociological experts to figure out how to change teaching methods, testing procedures and to encourage girls so they'd catch up. Now there are serious allegations that education is failing boys, that it has become too female-centric, and nobody much cares.

Instead of acknowledging that Drea was right and that you were wrong, you try to turn it around and talk about unfairness toward men. One thing I will say about this is that lately men tend to gravitate toward 1-3 year college courses unlike women, who tend to go to universities.

Government. About half the young women I know are university grads, half not. But only 1 out of ten really has any interest in politics, enough to actually follow what's going on, talk about it, advocate policies, etc.

One in ten?? I would say that the number is much, much higher then what you would like us to believe.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

You want a list of people who crossed the floor?
How many political parties did Stephen Harper belong to?

Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Reform, Alliance and now the Conservatives.

Can't the man make up his mind?

Now he's scary because he can't make up his mind? :lol:

Get your story straight. You go from calling the Reform to the Alliance to the Conservatives all the same party to badgering Harper for 'switching' between them.

Here's a good lesson if a party CHANGES IT'S NAME and a member goes along with the new party the member isn't really switching parties, because the original one doesn't exist anymore.

This really goes to show how utterly weak the anti-Harper attacks have become.

Harper can't make up his mind? From former supporters of Mr. Dithers no less. :lol:

Rovik · October 21, 2006

true. most women I know don't really care about politics at all. If they do, they are liberal activist types..
..that might even be dykes..

hehe..

Are you trying to stereotype here?

Else they are just voting with what their husbands or men around them feel they should vote.
When my fiance met me she had no clue what was going on. Last election she voted conservative of course becuase myself and her Dad were conservatives.

I feel that if we were NDP or something she just would have voted NDP.. she really doesn't care to learn the issues of politics.

This may be true in your family but you can't assume it's like this in all families. For example, it was rare that both my parents voted for the same party.

You know, there WAS reasons why females were not able to vote at one time in history.

Do you miss those days when women were not allowed to vote?

Drea · October 21, 2006

Now he's scary because he can't make up his mind?

All you conservatives keep this up. Not one single "other" person has mentioned that Harper is "scary". Why do you keep trotting it out when it means nothing? I am not "scared" of Harper.

The chicken littles of the world are conservatives. Fearing terrorist attacks. Fearing gays. Fearing strong women. Fearing educating the populace. Fearing God. Conservatives are fearful creatures. :lol:

Rovik · October 21, 2006

Most notable women who ruled throughout history did not shy away from using force and might. They were not anti-war! They were for defending their countries and their way of life. Some had been more aggressive...and were not above doing violence in the name of vengeance.

Just like there have been strong women in history who were anti-war because they knew the consequences of war (death, poverty, violence,)

Sadly, I do agree with you about some women not shying away from force. There has been a disturbing trend of women suicide bombers in recent history, especially in the Middle East .

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

All you conservatives keep this up. Not one single "other" person has mentioned that Harper is "scary". Why do you keep trotting it out when it means nothing? I am not "scared" of Harper.
The chicken littles of the world are conservatives. Fearing terrorist attacks. Fearing gays. Fearing strong women. Fearing educating the populace. Fearing God. Conservatives are fearful creatures.

It helps to ignore his posts like I do. All he does is attack people personally with a : :lol: It's in every one of his posts.

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

Now he's scary because he can't make up his mind?

All you conservatives keep this up. Not one single "other" person has mentioned that Harper is "scary". Why do you keep trotting it out when it means nothing? I am not "scared" of Harper.

The chicken littles of the world are conservatives. Fearing terrorist attacks. Fearing gays. Fearing strong women. Fearing educating the populace. Fearing God. Conservatives are fearful creatures.

Bravo.

Canuck E Stan · October 21, 2006

Conservatives are fearful creatures.

...and especially fearful of Liberal thieves and hypocrites.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

...and especially fearful of Liberal thieves and hypocrites.

And ex-girlfriends.

Higgly · October 21, 2006

They also tend to be less educated, and far less knowledgeable or interested in politics.

'Women abandon Argus'....

Right up there with your rants on Moslems :lol:

Higgly · October 21, 2006

Women tend to be more sentimental and emotional.

Hee hee...

Higgly · October 21, 2006

I don't think anyone shuld be offended by Makays comment, Belinda is a dog.

Man's best friend? What a moron....

Drea · October 21, 2006

hi dear Andrea.I miss u too very much.I am studing architecting in Tehran university now .the capital of Iran.so I am not at home and I can use computer just at the university.plz tell me whw\en u are online that I can find a time and chat u

Just got this instant message from my friend in Iran.

a FEMALE!

an EDUCATED female!

in IRAN!

becoming an ARCHITECT!

wimim ar sew stoopid and unedukated eh argus!?

Higgly · October 21, 2006

As Craig Oliver put it, McKay did not actually say the word "dog."

Isn't this the guy who was wearing a 'Go Stevie Go!' button during the last election?

Drea · October 21, 2006

I don't think anyone shuld be offended by Makays comment, Belinda is a dog.

Man's best friend? What a moron....

:lol: Reminded me of Bugs Bunny saying "What a maroon!"

Higgly · October 21, 2006

Who says they're negative towards women? These are observable traits. Both genders have them.

You know Argus, I can't ever recalling a woman saying 'Bow Wow.'. And I have known a lot of them in a lot of different places. Of course, your mileage may vary....

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

It helps to ignore his posts like I do. All he does is attack people personally with a : It's in every one of his posts.

There is clearly a strong dislike for Harper. Some claim they don't "hate" him. Some claim they don't find him "scary". All seems like a way of avoiding the subject when you are attacking the man on meaningless, ridiculous things. So I'll re-post *with one change* the post drea responded to, you ignored, yet you used Drea's response to attack me on.

Me thinks you ignore my posts because they point out the flaws in your thinking and expose your anti-Harperism.

Somebody open to debate would respond. Somebody here just to attack the PM would ignore it.

Now you are criticizing him because he can't make up his mind?
Get your story straight. You go from calling the Reform to the Alliance to the Conservatives all the same party to badgering Harper for 'switching' between them.

Here's a good lesson if a party CHANGES IT'S NAME and a member goes along with the new party the member isn't really switching parties, because the original one doesn't exist anymore.

This really goes to show how utterly weak the anti-Harper attacks have become.

Harper can't make up his mind? From former supporters of Mr. Dithers no less.

Drea · October 21, 2006

Me thinks you ignore my posts because they point out the flaws in your thinking and expose your anti-Harperism.

The thread is not about Harper at all.

The thread is about Mckay.

Yet you trot out the old "YOU ARE ANTI-HARPER!" rant.

Get over it. This isn't about Harper himself, it's about conservatives negative attitude toward women.

Funny conservatives! -- if we say "we dislike GW" you assume we mean the entire American populace. When we say "we dislike conservative policy or attitude" you assume we mean the leader.

Weird.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

The thread is not about Harper at all.
The thread is about Mckay.

Yet you trot out the old "YOU ARE ANTI-HARPER!" rant.

Get over it. This isn't about Harper himself, it's about conservatives negative attitude toward women.

Uhhh, the post I responded to was an 'anti-Harper' post. (Post #25) It directly attacked him for 'switching parties'.

Are you saying that people should have free rein to attack the PM if they do it off the topic of the thread. :huh:

blame your buddy jdobbin for changing the topic of the thread

but go on with your 'the Conservatives are fearing' everything point. I'm debating the points made in a post. I have responded to your questions about my posts. quid pro quo?

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

Me thinks you ignore my posts because they point out the flaws in your thinking and expose your anti-Harperism.
Somebody open to debate would respond. Somebody here just to attack the PM would ignore it.

Now you are criticizing him because he can't make up his mind?

That's odd. What you wrote before was this:

Now he's scary because he can't make up his mind?

I wouldn't answer such a dishonest question either. The poster had never said he was "scary". And "questions" punctuated with one of those dumb happy faces are rhetorical anyway, even if they are constructed honestly.

You can ask questions in that fashion, but don't start crying that they weren't answered and attacking other posters as being anti-Harper/just attacking the poor PM because they don't answer your very poor questions.

Drea · October 21, 2006

Uhhh, the post I responded to was an 'anti-Harper' post. (Post #25) It directly attacked him for 'switching parties'.

In direct response to the justification of insults by conservatives -- "Belinda, the whore! She crossed the floor!"

So yes, jdobbin was correct in bringing this in to the thread in this context.

gerryhatrick · October 21, 2006

The thread is not about Harper at all.
The thread is about Mckay.

Yet you trot out the old "YOU ARE ANTI-HARPER!" rant.

Get over it. This isn't about Harper himself, it's about conservatives negative attitude toward women.

Uhhh, the post I responded to was an 'anti-Harper' post. (Post #25) It directly attacked him for 'switching parties'.

Are you saying that people should have free rein to attack the PM if they do it off the topic of the thread.

Actually you accused the poster of being anti-Harper, not the post. And in either event, the post was not anti-Harper at all, it was making a point about belonging to different parties. Calling it an "attack", as you do is just simply ridiculous.

And if that wasn't enough, the poster didn't mention Harper "switching parties", it mentioned that he has belonged to different parties. How is pointing out a fact constitute "attacking" Harper? Your empty accusations are getting more numerous by the day.

jdobbin · October 21, 2006

In direct response to the justification of insults by conservatives -- "Belinda, the whore! She crossed the floor!"
So yes, jdobbin was correct in bringing this in to the thread in this context.

And Harper was at one time a Liberal. I can't recall when the Liberals were ever the Conservatives in modern federal times. Ergo, he switched parties.

August1991 · October 21, 2006

Just got this instant message from my friend in Iran.
a FEMALE!

an EDUCATED female!

in IRAN!

becoming an ARCHITECT!

wimim ar sew stoopid and unedukated eh argus!?

Drea, your opinion of women is little different from Argus'. The stoopid wimin vote Conservative.

Ricki Bobbi · October 21, 2006

Actually you accused he poster of being anti-Harper, not the post. And in either event, the post was not anti-Harper at all, it was making a point about belonging to different parties. Calling it an "attack", as you do is just simply ridiculous.
And if that wasn't enough, the poster didn't mention Harper "switching parties", it mentioned that he has belonged to different parties. How is pointing out a fact constitute "attacking" Harper? Your empty accusations are getting more numerous by the day.

How many political parties did Stephen Harper belong to?
Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Reform, Alliance and now the Conservatives.

Can't the man make up his mind?

Calling my actions 'ridiculous' hmmmm.

Can't the man make up his mind? hmmmm.

Is drea going to respond to my post, or is it simply easier to change the topic?