Women Abandon Conservatives

[Rovik]

So these strong anti-war women that you speak of know the consequences of war.

Do they know the consequences of no war? The consequences of appeasement and surrender?

The consequences of being invaded by the enemy?

Lots of women have been anti-war throughout history...people like Helen Keller and Mother Teresa are just two that come to mind.

It's sometimes very easy start a war, but it often takes a stronger spirit and courageous will to stop a war before it begins or to stop a needless war once it's already started.

Yes, there have been wars in history that were just, such as War World One and Two, but there also have been many that were based on greed or fear and exaggeration or for a political agenda. In these needless wars, just about everyone loses.

[Rovik]

I would say most of the people I've met who graduate from sociology type courses have little or no interest in economics and finance.

Looks like your circle of friends are different from mine. I have to admit that many may not know a lot about economics and finance but they know a bit abot these and have the interest to want to know more.

Oh come on. That's just not very believable. Small 'c' conservatives tend to care a great deal about costs and side effects. Conservatives are the bean-counters, remember, the cold-hearted, flinty eyed money people who say "no" to all those wonderful projects and programs the lefties want to put in place..

I'm not talking about the financial costs, I'm talking about the human costs. Often Conservatives will like to cut programs to save money without caring about what impact the cutting will have on people's lives, like tthe Conservative's recent cut of monies toward programs combating adult illiteracy.

It's what just about everyone does say. Remember that 70% of Canadians want us to meet our Kyoto goals - and almost none of them have any idea what they are, or how to do it, or what would be involved in doing it.

70% includes both men and women. How come you assumed that this woman was in the 70% and not the 30%.

[Rovik]

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

Typical scare tactics comment.

Funny thing is that you often accuse others of using scare tactics against Harper and the Conservatives.

[Canadian Blue]

I agree that some of the costs were harsh. However the government shouldn't be funding groups with a political agenda, which the previous government was doing. Funding should be cut for any political organization. Human costs should always be looked at when cutting any funding.

As for women being anti-war, its true that women are usually more compassionate then men. However it would be wrong to classify "anti war" being a characteristic of women since in many cases in history women have started and fought wars. Just and unjust.

[Rovik]

Yes, she goes where the power is. Who wouldn't.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in.

Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson...

He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy!

There were some rather important differences. In Emmerson's case he had already been a cabinet minister, and a well-respected one, at that, a man commited to the goal of negotiating a settlement with the US over softwood lumber. The Tories brought him back in the same portfolio to finish what he started. He did not bad-mouth his former party, and his vote was not particularly needed on anything.

Stronach had been a leadership candidate for the very party she turned around and bad-mouthed only a year later when abandoning it. She jumped ship into a cabinet post she was most certainly not qualified for on the eve of a critical vote where her vote was the decisive one saving the government.

She betrayed her party, in other words, for the offer of a cabinet position, which makes her a political whore Emmerson can certainly be criticised for what he did, but not to the same extent.

Both Stonach and Emerson are both guilty of betraying their former parties. And the fact that both their new parties gave them cabinet posts is damning to both parties. (Though there is no excuse to call Stronach the names she has been called.)

But to me, they can't touch what McKay did. His ultimate betrayal destroyed the Progressive Conservatives when he broke his promise to Orchard. How can anyone trust the man after he did something like that.

[Canadian Blue]

Rovic, does anybody trust any politician. Politician's are the least trusted group of people in the country, and theirs a reason for it. Chretien said in 84 he wanted to bring in PR when the system wasn't working for him. Then when first past the post worked for the liberals they didn't bring in PR.

It seems that pretty well all politician's are only in it for power no matter what the cost. Thats especially true with our current system of government.

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/

[Rovik]

The only party that seemed to what to bring in PR is the NDP. The other parties are against it.

If the NDP is in support of it, they should demand that Manitoba and Saskatchewan do it to demonstate how good it is.

First, the Federal NDP is a different entity then each of the Provinces' NDP. With your logic, the Newfoundland Conservative govt. would mirror the Federal government in every policy and stance, but we know that this is not true. Another example, is the Quebec Liberal govt...many of the members ended up helping the Conservatives in the last Federal election instead of the Liberals.

Next, we all know that PR will hurt the Liberals, Conservatives and the BQ the most. These parties tend to do very well in the type of electorial system we have now.

[Figleaf]

Have you ever done volunteer work with any political body Figleaf?

I worked with the Liberals many years ago, but quit in disgust.

Well, since you can't provide any substance to your claims ...

You don't appear willing to grasp the meaning of my comments, so the substance I've provided so far has been wasted.

You don't have to fax them, simply name your credentials without giving out your identity.

If you have this huge wealth of knowledge then we should know.

I prefer to rely on the strength of my arguments, without appealing to the authority of my education.

You were shown proof of the CBSA fleeing their posts. You simply chose to ignore it.

1. I was refered to a news report that mentioned it, but was unclear on specifics.

2. The fact they fled their posts tells us nothing about whether they had cause to.

I think saying that about a 1 out of 3 people are ignorant, stupid, and thoughtless,...

Are you twisting my words on purpose or because you can't grasp English?

Excuse me child.

Child?

If you can't come up with anything valid to debate then stop going on about grammar.

If you can't debate without spewing personal attacks, I'm not likely to cater to your preferences.

[Canadian Blue]

Man, I gotta start drinking again.

Allright, if your not with the liberals because you quit in disgust, then who do you support politically? As well what made you volunteer and then quit in disgust?

I volunteered with the conservatives nearly two years ago, and quit as well after one of the campaign advisors said that he would ignore any questions about abortion.

You don't appear willing to grasp the meaning of my comments, so the substance I've provided so far has been wasted.

No, I want to know how you can say that millions of people can be divided into four camps, each negative. Despite the fact each person is an individual, with individual beliefs. Have you ever read Identity and Violence figleaf.

If you can't debate without spewing personal attacks, I'm not likely to cater to your preferences.

Allright, weren't you the one that asked me how stupid I was because I voted for the conservative party. I believe that you are just as guilty of spewing personal attacks as much as I am.

Here's the senate, urging the government to arm the CBSA.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/15/...port050615.html

[Figleaf]

... who do you support politically?

I cast my votes on a case by case basis.

As well what made you volunteer and then quit in disgust?

-Interest.

-Pettiness and dissembling among the backroom boys.

No, I want to know how you can say that millions of people can be divided into four camps, each negative. [

Please try to listen ... I'm talking about the choices, not the people. Further, I've explained my views quite fully already in the posts above. They are available for you to peruse.

Have you ever read Identity and Violence figleaf.

No.

Allright, weren't you the one that asked me how stupid I was ...

I asked you that. I

didn't rant at you telling you it.

I believe that you are just as guilty of spewing personal attacks as much as I am.

Then you are mistaken.

[gerryhatrick]

figleaf, your posts are too long. Too many one liners.

[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.

:

ig·no·rance

noun

1. lack of knowledge: lack of knowledge or education

2. unawareness: unawareness of something, often of something important

So conservatives are basically stupid or selfish in their voting intentions.

'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'll give you a link to a post from earlier today.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry145907

Here's what I asked you in order to bring about some debate.

Name the policies which are harmful and why you believe them to be so, and then let conservatives debate you on them. Just to see which of the four camps they falled into. How are they harmful, so far what major harm has been done to the country. I haven't seen any harm done yet, and I work for the federal government.

This was in response to your posts.

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

Guess not. But no-one (smart) ever said Cons were smart.

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.

If you don't remember the priorities that were promised by the conservatives in the last election, how do you know they were wrong headed.

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 don't really think people have an off day and say "I'm voting conservative because I feel like shit!".

QUOTE

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.

If you don't know what Harper's five priorities were, then how can you make such a broad statement. You are trying to classify 5,374,071 Canadian's into three camps. How is it possible to say that not a single one of those 5,374,071 had a good reason to vote conservative. I was even able to list policies that Canadian's could support.

As well the Conservatives are exactly that conservative. The sky hasn't been falling as was predicted by the liberals. If you have a point to make, then make it instead of making broad generalizations.

I called you arrogrant, and elitist. You shouldn't be offended by that when you say that 5,374,071 are stupid, ignorant, have a self interest, or are having an off day which caused them to vote conservative.

By the way, what party did you vote for in the last general election?

[Argus]

But to me, they can't touch what McKay did. His ultimate betrayal destroyed the Progressive Conservatives when he broke his promise to Orchard. How can anyone trust the man after he did something like that.

The PC party was going nowhere and facing imminent bankruptcy. It was unable to find good candidates, and it had no large money backers. It had no future.

And David Orchard is no more a conservative than Jack Layton is.

[Rue]

And this is even before they heard Peter MaCkay's comments.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/tories_women_poll

I'm not sure what it means but maybe they don't like that Harper eats kittens.

It seems that while Harper was courting the Jewish vote, he was losing the vote from women.

Please on two accounts;

1-Harper is no more courting the Jewish vote then the Liberals have in the past-ethnic pandering is not the exclusive domain of one party

2-to stereotype all women as thinnking the same and actually giving 2 shyts about what McKay said is

ridiculous-the Liberals tried to turn it into political points and it has not worked and Jack Layton as usual came across as a patronizing, self-righteous twat. Twat by the way is not meant to be disparaging. I just like the way it sounds to describe the noise that comes from Layton's mouth when he speaks.

[Figleaf]

If you don't remember the priorities that were promised by the conservatives in the last election, how do you know they were wrong headed.

Funny you can review my posts so assiduosly, and yet overlook the ones where I answer your questions. I have listed (q.v.) three major respects that Conservative philosophy, and therefore policy, is characteristically wrong-headed (int'l, economic, and social).

As for remembering Harper's 5 proclaimed priorities, why should I bother to take note of such irrelevant spin-making?

How is it possible to say that not a single one of those 5,374,071 had a good reason to vote conservative.

Simple. Voting Conservative is a mistake, so by definition no reason can qualify as a good reason.

By the way, what party did you vote for in the last general election?

None of your business.

[Argus]

Oh come on. That's just not very believable. Small 'c' conservatives tend to care a great deal about costs and side effects. Conservatives are the bean-counters, remember, the cold-hearted, flinty eyed money people who say "no" to all those wonderful projects and programs the lefties want to put in place..

I'm not talking about the financial costs, I'm talking about the human costs. Often Conservatives will like to cut programs to save money without caring about what impact the cutting will have on people's lives, like tthe Conservative's recent cut of monies toward programs combating adult illiteracy.

And what were the human costs of that given the funding was not to programs which actually educated anyone but to advocacy groups?

It's what just about everyone does say. Remember that 70% of Canadians want us to meet our Kyoto goals - and almost none of them have any idea what they are, or how to do it, or what would be involved in doing it.

70% includes both men and women. How come you assumed that this woman was in the 70% and not the 30%.

In most polls, men have more tendancy to come down more on the "money" side and women more on the "feel-good" side.

[Black Dog]

In most polls, men have more tendancy to come down more on the "money" side and women more on the "feel-good" side.

You neglect to mention that this is a distinctly modern phenomenon. In the past, it was women who voted conservative.

As for the idea that liberal voters are emotional and conservative voters hard-headed realists, well, I think the right's constant appeals to the "traditional values"/social conservative crowd undermine that one. That same sex marriage was an issue at all shows how conservative voters are not the hard-headed pragmatists you liek to think you...er...they are.