Women Abandon Conservatives

[Figleaf]

Figleaf get a life we knee jerking Cons know how to analyse the sentence and what it by rules of english grammar means.

Give me some evidence in support of that contention, please.

Mackay never said the word dog and since the Libs were inquiring about the well being of that dog, they go the answer to go ask Stronach ( might as well have the the implied person in here), you have her. Now since Stronach is familiar with tha said dog, then why is it so hard to believe that he said to go ask her. You have her, is quite truthful the libs do have her. So go ask her, you have her. Also yes Stroanch knew whos dog it was and that is why the Libs knew that bit. So yes she did know the dog and its owner. I would imagine from the time she spent down there when she was with Peter

That's an absurd construction of the exchange. Don't you knee-jerking Cons understand that such convolutions merely reflect as badly on your honesty as they do on Mackay's?

[Figleaf]

Ricki It si only because they know they are losing the debate ...

Losing the debate!?? It's the Conservative supporters who are making up ridiculous, hopelessly unbelievable interpretations of Mackay's comment in order to give threadbare cover to his weaseling. No-one with a shred of independence could possibly fall into your interpretation.

[Canadian Blue]

Figleaf get a life we knee jerking Cons know how to analyse the sentence and what it by rules of english grammar means.

Nobody on these forums have a life including myself

[gerryhatrick]

Figleaf get a life we knee jerking Cons know how to analyse the sentence and what it by rules of english grammar means. You libs just do not has those skills I guess,

Mackay never said the word dog and since the Libs were inquiring about the well being of that dog, they go the answer to go ask Stronach

The answer was "you have her".

Why can't you admit this simple fact of the matter? You insist on claiming the answer from MacKay was along the lines of "go ask her", and from that innaccuracy you're making the ridiculous claim that he meant the Liberal questioner should go ask Stronach about his dog.

If you cannot admit that the words heard on the tape and the words witnesses report Mackay as having said were "you have her" then I'll have to assume you are intentionally being dishonest.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party:

-ignorance,

-stupidity, and/or

-perceived self-interest.

Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

So your view of the truth is the only one that counts?

Hmmm, by definition I guess my reasons for supporting the Conservatives *have* to come from ig'nance and/or my stupidness. Here they are:

The Liberals stole money from Canadians and abused the trust the Canadians placed in them as proved in Justice Gomery's inquiry.

The Liberal leader in January was so weak and indecisive that an internationally renowned magazine dubbed him Mr. Dithers.

The NDP have never governed nationally and there are grave concerns about their ability to handle the economy.

Prime Minister Harper governed on five priorities. Canadians appreciated a focused government. He has achieved three of the priorites and is working on the final two.

So are my reasons ig'nant or stupid?

[watching&waiting]

No Gerry it is you who is being dishonest, or is it that you just do not want to hear clear easy explantions about your 3 worded out of context position. I have explained this more then enough for the normal minded. But there are always the slow learners (Liberals) in my own view.

Tell me Gerry are you not proud of the way your parties leadership hopefuls are teraing each other apart and driving the party into camps more looking for revenge then mending a party? You must be very proud of them. That is the same way you try and make something out of nothing here. I will stop ther as I am probably pushing the line I drew a week or so back, about not picking on you so much. It is just you seem to invite it. I will stop now and I wish you and your leadership hopefuls all the luck they seach for. After this weekend though I am not so sure that any of them look too favourably on the party as a whole, but that is my take on it.

[Figleaf]

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party:

-ignorance,

-stupidity, and/or

-perceived self-interest.

Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

So your view of the truth is the only one that counts?

My view of the truth is the only one I believe.

Hmmm, by definition I guess my reasons for supporting the Conservatives *have* to come from ig'nance and/or my stupidness.

Don't forget the possibility of "perceived self-interest".

Here they are:

The Liberals stole money from Canadians and abused the trust the Canadians placed in them as proved in Justice Gomery's inquiry.

SOME Liberals stole money. They were no longer in office. Ergo this is a faulty basis for objecting to the Liberal party.

The Liberal leader in January was so weak and indecisive that an internationally renowned magazine dubbed him Mr. Dithers.

That doesn't provide a reason to object to the Liberals now, since Dithers is gone.

Anyway, you could pick another, better party to support than the Conservatives and still not support the Liberals.

The NDP have never governed nationally and there are grave concerns about their ability to handle the economy.

It sounds like you are coming to the point of admitting that you support the Conservatives merely by default -- the best you can see among a bad bunch. If so, you probably fall into my first category, since there are numerous parties to throw your vote behind.

However, based on your other posts, I think your support for the Conservatives is more active than that.

Prime Minister Harper governed on five priorities. Canadians appreciated a focused government. He has achieved three of the priorites and is working on the final two.

I forget what those priorities were, so I can't analyse them for you.

So are my reasons ig'nant or stupid?

...OR based on perceived self-interested.

I can't give you an answer on that yet, but they must be one of the three.

[belinda emerson]

Prime Minister Harper governed on five priorities. Canadians appreciated a focused government. He has achieved three of the priorites and is working on the final two.

You should identify the priorities he's working on. We all know where he stands on gay marriage so is taking away that legislated right one of the two priorities he's working on? And we all know that Harper and most of his caucus voted against including gay bashing in hate crimes legislation. Is he working on taking sexual orientation out of hate crimes legislation or will he wait until he wins a majority?

In July, 2006, the rate of income taxes increased on income in the lowest tax bracket. Was that one of his priorities? For some reason that didn't get as much press as the 1% drop in GST.

And what about his election promise to remove the capital gains tax if the money is re-invested within a fixed time period? Is he working on that or has he completed abandoned that promise?

And am I mistaken or did Harper appoint a man from Quebec to the Senate then promptly put this unelected man into his Cabinet? If my recollection is correct, this man had previously chaired Harper's leadership campaign. Where did this fit into Harper's promises and priorities? Did it fall under Accountability?

[gerryhatrick]

No Gerry it is you who is being dishonest, or is it that you just do not want to hear clear easy explantions about your 3 worded out of context position. I have explained this more then enough for the normal minded. But there are always the slow learners (Liberals) in my own view.

Well, there's slow learners, and then there's liars.

You're the person attempting to tell us that instead of "you have her" Mackay said "go ask her".

I called you on it and showed you the quote heard on the tape. Instead of being able to admit a simple truth you take a similar type of deceitful position as Mackay has done.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You should identify the priorities he's working on.

Hmm, the five priorities during the eleciton were pretty obvious.

Attack him on what he might do, but *scary* *scary* *scary* just ain't gonna work...

[Canadian Blue]

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party:

-ignorance,

-stupidity, and/or

-perceived self-interest.

Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

Since you are the judge and jury regarding the truth in Canada, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Some people like the fact that a government is finally getting tough on crime, bringing forward some reform in the senate, lowering taxes, arming the CBSA, supporting the military by bringing in more funding, and giving a large sum of money back to families. I don't really see how thats stupid, or ignorant. Their is alot more that has to be done, but I don't see that as dangerous to the country.

A better question is how can people be so stupid as to believe that they are superior to their fellow Canadian's due to their political beliefs. I voted conservative in the last federal election, and will probably be voting NDP in my province when the provincial election in my province. Am I ignornant, stupid, or acting in my own self interest. Same goes with nearly a third of Canadian's that support the conservatives. Do you actaully believe that they are inferior to Canadian's that vote Liberal.

As for Mackay, he should apologize for the remarks as it brings down decorum in the house. It was wrong, and he should apologize to the MP for it. However MP's oughta bring forward a bit more decorum to the house, and respect other MP's.

[belinda emerson]

You should identify the priorities he's working on.

Attack him on what he might do,

Actually if you read my post you would see that I attacked him on not only what he might do but also on what he has done such as raising income tax, appointing an unelected man to cabinet and failing to deliver on his capital gains tax promise.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Actually if you read my post you would see that I attacked him on not only what he might do but also on what he has done such as raising income tax, appointing an unelected man to cabinet and failing to deliver on his capital gains tax promise.

The Liberals didn't cut the income tax you are referring to so Harper didn't raise it.

Harper felt that Montreal deserved representation at the cabinet table. So he appointed Fortier. Chretien and Martin never recognized the important role Calgary plays in our country.

The capital gains tax you are attacking him on what he might do. i.e. he *might not* fulfill his promise before the next election.

Pretty weak. If that's all you can come up with bring on the election.

[belinda emerson]

Actually if you read my post you would see that I attacked him on not only what he might do but also on what he has done such as raising income tax, appointing an unelected man to cabinet and failing to deliver on his capital gains tax promise.

The Liberals didn't cut the income tax you are referring to so Harper didn't raise it.

Harper felt that Montreal deserved representation at the cabinet table. So he appointed Fortier. Chretien and Martin never recognized the important role Calgary plays in our country.

The capital gains tax you are attacking him on what he might do. i.e. he *might not* fulfill his promise before the next election.

Pretty weak. If that's all you can come up with bring on the election.

Oh I'm sure that none of this Harper sleaziness will have the impact of his extending our mission in Afghanistan. As long as the Liberals don't shoot themselves in the foot by picking someone like Ignatieff, I too say bring on the election.

[Figleaf]

[quote name='Canadian Blue

No more time wasted posting!

Edited July 28, 2007 by Figleaf

[Ricki Bobbi]

essarily[/i] demonstrated by voting Liberal (though it can be on a case by case basis).

Wow. So Canadians who vote Conservative are necessarily arrogant, stupid or behaving from perceived self-interest.

Yes you are entitled to your opinions.

The sad elitism of dismissing the opinions of other Canadians who don't share your views is symbolic of the arrogance that has infected the Liberals for far too long.

That's why y'all lost in Janaury. That's why y'all will lose in the spring.

[Figleaf]

essarily[/i] demonstrated by voting Liberal (though it can be on a case by case basis).

Wow. So Canadians who vote Conservative are necessarily arrogant, stupid or behaving from perceived self-interest.

'Ignorant', not 'arrogant'.

But let's be precise. Supporting the Conservatives is ignorant, stupid or done out of perceived self-interest. The people doing it may be merely having an off day and not be those things on an ongoing basis. I refer to the act/choice, not the person.

[Ricki Bobbi]

'Ignorant', not 'arrogant'.

But let's be precise. Supporting the Conservatives is ignorant, stupid or done out of perceived self-interest. The people doing it may be merely having an off day and not be those things on an ongoing basis. I refer to the act/choice, not the person.

I forgot arrogance is the Liberals domain.

But nobody who is intelligent and thinking of the best interest of Canadians could vote Conservative.

Of course you are referring to the act. If you admitted your arrogance you would truly be admitting to breaking the rules of the board and your snottish faux intellectualism. From where did you gain this enlgithenment that lower Canadians, i.e. Conservative voters, so richly need???

Have fun waiting till 2010, at the earliest, to see another Liberal Government.

[Figleaf]

'Ignorant', not 'arrogant'.

But let's be precise. Supporting the Conservatives is ignorant, stupid or done out of perceived self-interest. The people doing it may be merely having an off day and not be those things on an ongoing basis. I refer to the act/choice, not the person.

But nobody who is intelligent and thinking of the best interest of Canadians could vote Conservative.

You should read more carefully. I just said: I refer to the act/choice, not the person.

But to answer what I think you must really mean (for the umpteenth time now), there are only three (or four if you count 'thoughtless') reasons that explain voting for the Conservatives: it's either an act of ignorance, stupidity or perceived self-interest. Would you like me to repeat that again?

If you admitted your arrogance you would truly be admitting to breaking the rules of the board

My arrogance? That sound like a bit of a personal attack. But don't worry, I won't tell on you.

Have fun waiting till 2010, at the earliest, to see another Liberal Government.

Will you remember this comment when the Liberals win the next election I wonder?

[Canadian Blue]

Is that the border guards? Who do they need to shoot? Sounds stupid.

Customs Border Services Agency. Who do they need to shoot, no one. Why do police and conservation officers carry firearms, for protection. Border Guards have had to flee their posts due to the fact they had no weapons. As well CBSA employees may be in situations were they are dealing with people who have firearms.

They have stupid policies about crime. They don't seek to reduce the causes. Three strikes is a mistake unless you leave a lot of discretion to the judge, and if you do, then the law has no meaning. Stiffer sentences are shown to have little if any effect on crime rates.

They don't deter crime, I agree with that. However if somebody commits a violent crime then they should be put in jail indefinitely after the third crime. This is more or less about putting repeat offendors behind bars, why should a pedophile be able to get out of jail after ten years of committing sexual crimes.

What are they doing there again?

Introducing a term limit for sentence, and appointing senators from provinces which democratically elect them. Baby steps at best, but at least some movement on the issue.

and giving a large sum of money back to families.

A stupid policy that achieves nothing concrete and is unfair to people without children.

Same with Universal daycare which would not give any benefits to stay at home moms or dads. The policy was an alternative to the position of the Liberal party.

lowering taxes,

Lowering taxes reduces the scope for the government to improve the lives of Canadians. Lowering taxes for already favored groups is unfair.

The GST tax cut was nice, but I agree taxes should be lowered more so for the lower and midde income earners in Canada.

I voted conservative in the last federal election, and will probably be voting NDP in my province when the provincial election in my province. Am I ignornant, stupid, or acting in my own self interest.

ARE you? I don't know. But I will expand my reasoning slightly, people who supported the Conservatives may simply be thoughtless as well. When you voted Conservative, you must have been ACTING in one of those ways.

Not really, I looked at the policies of each party and decided Conservative was the best option and thats how I voted. I doubt its thoughtless, I know some people who simply vote Liberal due to the fact their parents vote Liberal, same goes with some of the people who vote conservative, new democrat, green, etc.

Your thinking is rediculous, and you lack maturity if it simply comes down to four reasons why people would support the conservatives. As well your argument itself is flawed as the vast majority of people vote based on self interest. To say that people who vote conservative are only acting in self interest while those on the left aren't is a flawed argument. Look down in the United States right now, people who traditionally voted Republican are going to the democrats now. I don't think they are thoughtless as they are making decisions based on what they think is best for the country.

Here's the thing, you have people who are conservative, liberal, libertarian, authoritarian, centrist, etc. All of them have reason's for supporting that view because they believe its the best way to run a government and a country. Each one can bring forward a valid argument.

http://www.politopia.com/interactive_map.htm

[Figleaf]

Is that the border guards? Who do they need to shoot? Sounds stupid.

Customs Border Services Agency. Who do they need to shoot, no one. Why do police and conservation officers carry firearms, for protection. Border Guards have had to flee their posts due to the fact they had no weapons. As well CBSA employees may be in situations were they are dealing with people who have firearms.

Naturally, I'm willing to re-evaluate my assessment on that point if necessary ... can you refer me to specifics that would allow me to do so?

They have stupid policies about crime. They don't seek to reduce the causes. Three strikes is a mistake unless you leave a lot of discretion to the judge, and if you do, then the law has no meaning. Stiffer sentences are shown to have little if any effect on crime rates.

They don't deter crime, I agree with that. However if somebody commits a violent crime then they should be put in jail indefinitely after the third crime.

If it doesn't deter crime, why would we want to incur such expense for every criminal who commits a petty offence after a couple of major ones? I certainly think repeat criminals should be given stiffer sentences, but making an inflexible formula is not sensible.

This is more or less about putting repeat offendors behind bars, why should a pedophile be able to get out of jail after ten years of committing sexual crimes.

The problem with the three strikes law is that it captures cases that don't fit the type you describe above. It will include people who rob two liquor stores in their twenties and then when they're fifty they kite a cheque. It's just not sensible to keep that person in jail at public expense for 20-40 years.

What are they doing there again?

Introducing a term limit for sentence, and appointing senators from provinces which democratically elect them. Baby steps at best, but at least some movement on the issue.

It's not wise to elect senators until we can reform the whole system because if elected they gain authority which without proper reform we should not want them to have.

...Same with Universal daycare which would not give any benefits to stay at home moms or dads. The policy was an alternative to the position of the Liberal party.

A stupid alternative. If we are concerned about our population growth we will have to come to terms with making childbearing more attractive. If some parents want to opt out of the daycare provided, a rebate for their children would level that problem.

I voted conservative in the last federal election, and will probably be voting NDP in my province when the provincial election in my province. Am I ignornant, stupid, or acting in my own self interest.

ARE you? I don't know. But I will expand my reasoning slightly, people who supported the Conservatives may simply be thoughtless as well. When you voted Conservative, you must have been ACTING in one of those ways.

Not really, I looked at the policies of each party and decided Conservative was the best option and thats how I voted.

Okay, I believe you tried to do your best, but I also believe you made the wrong choice, probably by not taking proper information into account (i.e. it was a choice made through ignorance of important factors, no special offense intended).

Your thinking is rediculous, and you lack maturity if it simply comes down to four reasons why people would support the conservatives.

We all have our opinions.

As well your argument itself is flawed as the vast majority of people vote based on self interest.

Then, presumably my argument is actually correct, unless you are exempting the support of Conservatives from the category of 'most people'.

Look down in the United States right now, people who traditionally voted Republican are going to the democrats now. I don't think they are thoughtless as they are making decisions based on what they think is best for the country.

They are ceasing to be thoughtless and NOT voting Republican. That fits my meaning, I think.

Here's the thing, you have people who are conservative, liberal, libertarian, authoritarian, centrist, etc. All of them have reason's for supporting that view because they believe its the best way to run a government and a country.

Yes. Some have good reasons, some not. Those who are supporting the conservative side don't have good reasons IMO.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yes. Some have good reasons, some not. Those who are supporting the conservative side don't have good reasons IMO.

That's no reason to accuse us of behaving out of ignorance or stupidity. That is arrogant and offensive.

Perceived self-interest? At least it isn't arrogant and rude.

[Figleaf]

Yes. Some have good reasons, some not. Those who are supporting the conservative side don't have good reasons IMO.

That's no reason to accuse us of behaving out of ignorance or stupidity.

If you do something without good reasons, what other explanation would you think I can put on it?

[Argus]

Well, yes, they are my words .... from a different post.

They are not the words you were responding to. So what gives?

A moot point.

Hardly. You responded to one post, quoting it and calling me names and then when I asked why, couldn't back it up except with words from another post you had already responded to earlier. That sounds pretty odd to me.

How long have you had that crush on Belinda?

[Argus]

The women I know who do vote Conservative tend to ... a personality which says "cut the bullshit" ...

That seems contradictory. If they don't like bullshit, how can they stand to vote Conservative?

Oh wow, that was so clever. Is this what you call debate? Is this what you're reduced to?