Women Abandon Conservatives

[Drea]

Honey, Bush doesn't even know where Canada IS, let alone bless it.

What I meant (sighhhhh) is that GW Bush is known for saying "God Bless America" at the end of his speeches.

Mr. Harper now says "God Bless Canada". If that aint copyin' I don't know what is.

If I woulda called you Honey it would a been sexist ... but that's the double-standard of the left. (Besides I wouldn't make such a presumption without seeing a photo first.)

As for the second part. To quote Homer Simpson "In case you dont' get it I was being sarcastic." But thanks for falling for it.

You were not being sarcastic at all. Of course Bush doesn't bless Canada.... he truly does not realize that the USA does not go all the way to the north pole.

God Bless!

Who sneezed?

[admclark]

It is any biography of Harper you can find. Please check your facts.

He switches parties regularly.

He switched from the Liberals to the PCs in high school.

He switched from the PCs to the Reform in the 80s.

Hmm, something he has done twice in 30 years and that is regular behaviour?

All the others were moves to a new party at the end of the old. Not a switch. Please quit being so dishonest.

I like you.

Isn't this typical Liberal behaviour? Anything to be righter (ironic) then the rest

[sideshow]

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.

Conservatives ALWAYS score lower with women: here, in the states, in the UK, everywhere.

Conservatives are generally known as a hard-nosed bean counters interested in solid, economical, efficient government. That's not the most appealing thing to women compared to the soothing, touchie-feelie, love the children, money for everyone big-daddy-will-watch-over-you mentality of the left wing parties.

Well I couldnt agree more. Who the hell gave them the power to vote anyways? We should revert to a society like in Mad Max-the strong survive, no taxes, every man for himself.

You hit the nail on the head with that last post.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You were not being sarcastic at all. Of course Bush doesn't bless Canada.... he truly does not realize that the USA does not go all the way to the north pole.

God Bless!

Who sneezed?

Ahh I forgot your clairvoyance. You *know* any woman who votes Conservative is brainwashed and you *know* I wasn't being sarcastic.

Hmmm, typical Leftie. Considers themselves an intellectual of some kind. More close-minded than any Conservative. Always quoting the constitution ... when it suits them. Too obstinate to see when they have been duped.

Freedom of religion? To be made fun of and belittled by the pseudo-intellectual lefties.

So when Belinda crossed the floor was there an actual deprogramming session? You said any woman who supports the Conservatives is brain-washed then any of their MPs must, by extension, be brainwashed.

Somehow a dinner with Mr. Dithers changed her from being brain-washed to a strong woman.

You'd think a guy who could perform such magic over dinner wouldn't have been judged as one of the most disappointing Prime Ministers in Canadian history.

It probably makes you angry every day thinking about Stephen Harper as Prime Miniter. How could *those people* vote for him. The truth is self-evident.

[Drea]

You haven't read very many posts if you had you would know that I don't support the policies of the left wing. I actually support a good many conservative ideals. Personal responsibilty, etc.

But when someone doesn't agree there you are " LEFTIST! LEFTIST!" "SKREEEEEE!"

No, I'm not angry, I'm a very happy person.

Why? Cause of all that wonderful Canadian freedom I have. The cons didn't change the govt one bit from Martins Liberals. They can't. Canadians won't stand for it.

The anger comes from the righteous indignation of the rightwing.

A centrist will debate -- a rightist (or leftist) will demand his view hold sway.

[jdobbin]

You haven't read very many posts if you had you would know that I don't support the policies of the left wing. I actually support a good many conservative ideals. Personal responsibilty, etc.

But when someone doesn't agree there you are " LEFTIST! LEFTIST!" "SKREEEEEE!"

Watch out. He'll probably call you a conservative hater again or a Harper hater.

[Ricki Bobbi]

No, I'm not angry, I'm a very happy person.

A centrist will debate -- a rightist (or leftist) will demand his view hold sway.

Women who vote Conservative are brainwashed.

Freedom of religion is to be mocked and made fun of.

You can know enough about a poster on an anonymous message board to know the 'control' he has over his wife.

But you are a centrist open to debate? Hmmmm ... I see the contradiction.

I think this is the quote you were trying to ignore.

So when Belinda crossed the floor was there an actual deprogramming session? You said any woman who supports the Conservatives is brain-washed then any of their MPs must, by extension, be brainwashed.

Somehow a dinner with Mr. Dithers changed her from being brain-washed to a strong woman.

You'd think a guy who could perform such magic over dinner wouldn't have been judged as one of the most disappointing Prime Ministers in Canadian history.

Happy person? I don't want to see somebody you think is unhappy.

[Drea]

No, I'm not angry, I'm a very happy person.

A centrist will debate -- a rightist (or leftist) will demand his view hold sway.

Women who vote Conservative are brainwashed.

Freedom of religion is to be mocked and made fun of.

You can know enough about a poster on an anonymous message board to know the 'control' he has over his wife.

But you are a centrist open to debate? Hmmmm ... I see the contradiction.

I think this is the quote you were trying to ignore.

So when Belinda crossed the floor was there an actual deprogramming session? You said any woman who supports the Conservatives is brain-washed then any of their MPs must, by extension, be brainwashed.

Somehow a dinner with Mr. Dithers changed her from being brain-washed to a strong woman.

You'd think a guy who could perform such magic over dinner wouldn't have been judged as one of the most disappointing Prime Ministers in Canadian history.

Happy person? I don't want to see somebody you think is unhappy.

Yes, she goes where the power is. Who wouldn't. Emerson did. Tories are not the cons of today. Tories were sensible normal people. Stronach expected the "new" conservatives to be like the PCs. She found out they weren't, she left. No problem. I was a Reformer back around 1990 too. But Reform turned into CRAP

Gawd I'm soooooo unhappy -- I have to work, I have to make decisions, I have to think! My hubby expects it!

[Ricki Bobbi]

But Reform turned into CRAP

Gawd I'm soooooo unhappy -- I have to work, I have to make decisions, I have to think! My hubby expects it!

I thought you wanted the right to marry your girlfriend? Does your husband expect that too?

Hmmm, CRAP don't really know what you are referring to? Could it be a leftie nickname for a now defunct political party? Close-minded faux intellectual leftie. Good on you for holding to the stereotype!

I thought you were a centrist?

I take it your silence on what a terrible PM Dithers was means that you agree he was an unmitigated disaster.

[Canadian Blue]

Well, are all Canadian's left of center Liberal party members that hate the conservatives. I doubt it. The type of attitude just displayed on both sides is the reason why Canada will become more divided. No side is 100% right ever. I like some policies from the Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives.

I'm not that impressed with Stronach, on a radio show when asked a question about how she solved problems at Magna she couldn't even give an answer.

[gerryhatrick]

Close-minded faux intellectual leftie. Good on you for holding to the stereotype!

I thought you were the self-appointed champion defending the forum from personal attacks.

You're been going off on that poster quite a bit. What's wrong, you been drinking tonight?

[Drea]

I take it your silence on what a terrible PM Dithers was means that you agree he was an unmitigated disaster.

I hate to admit it (at least I CAN admit it) but yes, although I liked Martin, the sponsorship scandal was a major disaster. (Mostly because the conservatives hung onto it like a rapid pitbull...)

IMO Trudeau was the best! We need another leader like him! He made Canada what it is today -- some of you may hate it, but that's life.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I thought you were the self-appointed champion defending the forum from personal attacks.

You're been going off on that poster quite a bit. What's wrong, you been drinking tonight?

Nope, haven't been drinking Gerry. Have you?

Is there anything actually wrong with what I said? Take a look at her posts as well before starting in with the attacks.

Just pointing out how that poster called herself a "centrist" yet exhibited all the worst qualities of the Canadian left.

[betsy]

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 .

Can you please name some strong women rulers in history who were anti-war?

[gerryhatrick]

I thought you were the self-appointed champion defending the forum from personal attacks.

You're been going off on that poster quite a bit. What's wrong, you been drinking tonight?

Nope, haven't been drinking Gerry. Have you?

No. And even if I was, I wouldn't be attacking people as you are.

I haven't attacked anyone since I told someone they were "confused" about an issue, after which you spat all over yourself with indignation. How dare I tell someone I think they're "confused"! What an awful personal attack that was, far and away worse than telling someone they're a "close-minded faux intellectual".

[Ricki Bobbi]

IMO Trudeau was the best! We need another leader like him! He made Canada what it is today -- some of you may hate it, but that's life.

Actually I think Mulroney was the best. He made Canada's economy what it is today and helped get Stephen Harper elected.

Some of you may hate the fact that Stephen Harper is our PM, but that's life.

[Drea]

Can you please name some strong women rulers in history who were anti-war?

They could not afford not to act like men. They were in a man's world and acted as men.

Now, if only we could get these women to act like real women (and not be automatically shunned by men) then we'd be making some headway. As it is, these women acted like men to fit in to the club. Thatcher probably cried her eyes out daily LOL -- but she could NEVER have shown that she had even a gram of femininity because... well duh.

RB, he has a minority govt. Not a landslide like Trudeau. Pffft he ain't half the leader Trudeau was.

[Ricki Bobbi]

They could not afford not to act like men. They were in a man's world and acted as men.

Now, if only we could get these women to act like real women (and not be automatically shunned by men) then we'd be making some headway. As it is, these women acted like men to fit in to the club. Thatcher probably cried her eyes out daily LOL -- but she could NEVER have shown that she had even a gram of femininity because... well duh.

RB, he has a minority govt. Not a landslide like Trudeau. Pffft he ain't half the leader Trudeau was.

Drea, sorry to confuse. I compared PET to Mulroney. Mulroney who won 2 majorities in 2 elections. One being the biggest landslide in history.

Trudeau ran in six elections. Three majorities, two minorites and one loss. Comparable results.

[betsy]

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,)

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?

[gerryhatrick]

Some of you may hate the fact that Stephen Harper is our PM, but that's life.

And you must be quivering with hate over the fact that his dream of a majority is out the window and there's a very good chance he could lose a spring election!

I for one am very happy that Stephen Harper has had this stint as PM. It's allowed Canadians to see what he and the CPC are. It's been a most fortunate turn of events.

[Ricki Bobbi]

And you must be quivering with hate over the fact that his dream of a majority is out the window and there's a very good chance he could lose a spring election!

I for one am very happy that Stephen Harper has had this stint as PM. It's allowed Canadians to see what he and the CPC are. It's been a most fortunate turn of events.

I've been asked by the moderator to ignore your attacks.

This is the only thing you have directed at me today that is attack free so I'll address it.

Quivering with hate? Incorrect use of the aadjective. To quiver is generally associated with fear.

Hmmm, the CPC is a party that needs to pick up five points or so six months before an election to gain a majority. No way that is "out the window" at the moment.

Why are chances good he could lose in the spring?

Are you saying that the conservatives have shown their "true colours", in your eyes, through their time in minority government?

[gerryhatrick]

And you must be quivering with hate over the fact that his dream of a majority is out the window and there's a very good chance he could lose a spring election!

I for one am very happy that Stephen Harper has had this stint as PM. It's allowed Canadians to see what he and the CPC are. It's been a most fortunate turn of events.

I've been asked by the moderator to ignore your attacks.

I think you mean you've been warned by the moderator. Slight difference.

Hmmm, the CPC is a party that needs to pick up five points or so six months before an election to gain a majority. No way that is "out the window" at the moment.

That would put them at about 37% or so. And before you throw the environics poll at me realize that two seperate recent polls have placed them at 32%, thus making that the more likely number.

And all those polls were before Mackay decided to call his ex a dog, and one (maybe two) were before the disasterous release of their environmental white wash.

[Argus]

Yes, but it's a relatively new trend, and overall, men still tend to be more educated. Also, most of the women I know are graduates from liberal arts courses: psychology, sociology, history, English, and know little and want to know less about economics, finance and science.

If you go back multiple generations, this may be true, but women are quickly catching up. Are you implying that ALL graduates from liberal arts courses don't want to know about economics, finance and science? Or only women? Or only the women you know?

Yes.

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.

<shrug> My experience is the opposite. The younger women I know tend to focus on what they think should be done, and don't like to be distracted by the complexities, costs and side effects of proposals. That would certainly tend to make them more likely to vote Liberal or NDP.

Funny, I feel that Conservatives (even Conservative women) tend to focus on what they think should be done, and don't like to be distracted by the complexities, costs and side effects of proposals.

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.

Yes, that sort of sentiment is common. But ask her what exactly should be done, and look at the blank expression on her face.

"We should reduce greenhouse gases!"

"Okay. How?"

Cue blank look. Then something like "They should make a law banning it!"

You know exactly what this woman will say though you don't even know her?!?!

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.

[Argus]

Sentimentality does not equal open-mindedness. Quite the opposite. It tends to obscure truth, dismiss logic and bypass intelligence in favour of emotion.

I disagree...sentimentality and empathy are components of open-mindedness. For example, look at what happened in the mid '90s. The Liberals cut spending and this meant less money for programs such as healthcare. The healthcare systems in the provinces suffered for it and healthcare today in many instances is at critical levels. Here in Newfoundland, horror stories on the open line shows are common...sick patients lying in cots in corridors because beds were previously cut to save money...people waiting days to see doctors because the area couldn't afford to keep a doctor and so on and so on. The Liberals at the time cut payments so that they could pay down the debt but they didn't consider the human consequences.

Okay, but how does that argue against what I said? I care very much about the state of public health care. That doesn't make me a sentimentalist. It makes me selfish. I want good health care for ME, and those I care about. That's not being sentimental. As for the Liberals, they are rarely sentimental when it comes to doing whatever they figure is best for themselves.

You don't like border-line poverty, eh? So what should we do? Let me guess here. Increase taxes on people who have more money and give it to poorer people? As for consequences, oh who cares, right? Yes, you're correct some men don't get less sentimental. That's why we have the NDP, for dreamers who never grew up.

Raising taxes for upper incomers doesn't need to be the way to do this. Cut subsidies and tax breaks to companies. In addition, have a tiered tax program, so companies making oodles of profits get taxed higher than companies breaking even or with lower profits.

And if that accelerates the move of Canadian companies to the US or Asia or Mexico, thus costing us both jobs and taxes?

[Argus]

So we are in complete agreement regarding political policy. We just call ourselves different "names". You call yourself a conservative, while I call myself a liberal. I believe I am socially liberal (as you are) and economically conservative (as you are). So, two basically (politically, not socially) like-minded voters battle it out for supremacy -- we are battling for the same thing. It ain't the current crop of social Conservatives. The old PCs would get my vote if they were around today. Today's conservatives, for the most part, have aligned themselves with the US Republicans and by proxy, the religious right.

I don't see that alignment. I do see that there are a lot of religious people in the Conservative Party, but I don't see that they've yet had any influence on policy. The positions the Conservative govenrment has taken so far in matters of foreign policy are positions I would have taken myself - though I'd have gone further. I'd join the missile defence program (as, ironically, Clyde Wells advises). This is not aligning myself with the Republicans. I really don't like the current crop of Republicans, with the possible exception of Mccain. I don't like Bush, and I certainly don't like Cheney or Rumsfeld. But so what? I do think winning in Afghanistan is important, and backing down the Islamists is important. If you prefer to think of it as alligning us with Tony Blair than do that.

I have no choice but to vote Liberal in today's political climate.

I can't possibly vote for this Liberal Party. They've lied to me too many times. I find the almost absolute lack of honesty and integrity of their leadership, and the smugness of their self-righteous, self-serving style-over-substance behaviour to be despicable. I might be wary of religious people like Harper, but so far I'll take him over the venal crop of powermongers who presently infest the Liberal Party.

With regard to women, we are not in agreement.

Earlier you stated that there "must be a reason why women didn't have the vote". The only reason is that for the past few thousand years we have lived in a patriarcal society.

I never said "there must be a reason why women didn't have the vote". That was someone else.

Earlier you stated that you like women "chatting and flirting with them". "Chatting and flirting" is most definetly not the same as "respecting". You may like women, sure, but you have no respect for them as equal fellow human beings. You may have a great respect for your mother, but only in the sense of her motherhood, not her as a person.

Chatting and flirting does not rule out respect. There are some I discuss political, social and philosophical issues with - who are mainly older, and our relationship is more congeniall and equal. Then there are younger women who are something of a mix given their ages. Some of them I respect in a certain ways, while others I just - I dunno, would "like" be too inexact a term? But age is not an exact indicator. One of my favorite conversational partners is barely out of university, and we have great fun discussing politics, though she's hopelessly liberal - and wrong - in a lot of things. Then again she punched a girl in the face for trying to kiss her in a bar so there must be some conservatism in there somewhere.