Women Abandon Conservatives

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

Sexist? Cowardly? Are you demented?

Demented? No, don't think so.

These are your words, are they not?

Brainless Belinda

Coincidentally again, Belinda only has her job - not to mention the clothes on her back, because of daddy, whlie Chow Chow only has her job because of hubby.

This girl hasn't accomplished anything in her life despite all the advantages, has no education, and in an age gone by (not very long ago either) she'd have been called an adulterous whore.

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. Sort of like saying "I didn't actually say 'dog'".

I

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

You just proved how deceitful your whole argument against MacKay really is.

Good work Gerry! :lol:

Conservative majority in the spring!!!

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

You just proved how deceitful your whole argument against MacKay really is.
Good work Gerry!

Conservative majority in the spring!!!

uh, ok. Whatever.

This is like the analogies I gave which clearly show MacKay did call Stronach a dog. You can't answer them, but then you engage in a drive by smear later on with no explanation.

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

uh, ok. Whatever.
This is like the analogies I gave which clearly show MacKay did call Stronach a dog. You can't answer them, but then you engage in a drive by smear later on with no explanation.

No, no they don't Gerry. Weak and deceitful. As most of your attacks on Harper have been.

Why not post that analogy again. I kinda like watching people dig themselves a hole.

MacKay's lawerly response. Hmmm, imagine a lwamaker responding in a matter that respects the law. :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

uh, ok. Whatever.
This is like the analogies I gave which clearly show MacKay did call Stronach a dog. You can't answer them, but then you engage in a drive by smear later on with no explanation.

No, no they don't Gerry. Weak and deceitful. As most of your attacks on Harper have been.

Why not post that analogy again. I kinda like watching people dig themselves a hole.

By all means

Man1: My dog is a good hunter.
Man2 (pointing at Man1's wife in the kitchen): And she can cook too!

Question: Is Man2 essentially calling Man1's wife a dog or not?

I await your answer.

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

Wait no longer.

"essentially" Weren't you attacking MacKay for being lawerly???

He denied calling her a dog. The best you can come up with is he 'essentially' called her a dog???

Good argument Gerry. :lol:

Your analogy essentially proves nothing.

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

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?

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

Wait no longer.
"essentially" Weren't you attacking MacKay for being lawerly???

He denied calling her a dog. The best you can come up with is he 'essentially' called her a dog???

Good argument Gerry.

Your analogy essentially proves nothing.

Very good Ricki. I'm not sure what the point was, but you've succeeded in posting another cute avoidance.

Remove the word "essentially" from the analogy if it's giving you problems, and then answer..

Answer the analogy Ricki.

edit: I better be more specific with you. Answer the QUESTION relating to the analogy, Ricki.

betsy · October 22, 2006

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?

Hint: 13 years...all kind of shit...with the Liberals?

watching&waiting · October 22, 2006

Enough of this stupid bickering.

First off even if women were finding it hard to be CPC, it would definitely not be to join Liberals, as they already had a poll before where women found the Liberal to be liars and cheats, so Maybe they will go Green. Who knows for sure.

As for the insult question, the answer Mackay gave was " go ask her ( motioning to her empty seat), she with your side now. This was in answer to how is your dog. The answer to go ask stronach, she is with your side now. So if this is to be taken at its true face meaning. it would be go ask Stronach about my dog, she is with your side now. Stronach knew of the dog and its owner, so how is this something bad? It is only an insult if you bastardize the english language to make it so.

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

... the answer Mackay gave was " go ask her ( motioning to her empty seat), she with your side now. This was in answer to how is your dog. The answer to go ask stronach, she is with your side now. So if this is to be taken at its true face meaning. it would be go ask Stronach about my dog, she is with your side now. Stronach knew of the dog and its owner, so how is this something bad? It is only an insult if you bastardize the english language to make it so.

Are you trying to quote Mackay there? If so, you have failed utterly.

watching&waiting · October 22, 2006

No I did not fail. That is exactly what went on and even the record show the end of 'She on you now" Even the Lib said he said go ask her (meaning Stronach), so how is this wrong ?

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

As for the insult question, the answer Mackay gave was " go ask her ( motioning to her empty seat), she with your side now. This was in answer to how is your dog. The answer to go ask stronach, she is with your side now. So if this is to be taken at its true face meaning. it would be go ask Stronach about my dog, she is with your side now. Stronach knew of the dog and its owner, so how is this something bad? It is only an insult if you bastardize the english language to make it so.

W&W, you do not have your facts correct.

From the Canadian Press:

The barely audible exchange was caught on audio tape, with one MP asking "What about your dog?" and someone who sounds like MacKay responding: "You have her."

Now that you have the correct wording, what is your interpretation?

watching&waiting · October 22, 2006

Even with that wording the fact that even the lib said that Mackay said Go ask her, you have her. would still mean go ask Stonach, you have her. Where is there a inferred insult even. Since Stronach knows the dog in question and it owner and she does belong to the libs.

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

No I did not fail. That is exactly what went on and even the record show the end of 'She on you now" Even the Lib said he said go ask her (meaning Stronach), so how is this wrong ?

You don't seem to understand the concept of quoting someone. Quoting someone means to repeat their exact words. In neither of these preceding threads have you given Mackays exact word's, so you are not succeeding in quoting him.

belinda emerson · October 22, 2006

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!

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

Even with that wording the fact that even the lib said that Mackay said Go ask her, you have her. would still mean go ask Stonach, you have her. Where is there a inferred insult even. Since Stronach knows the dog in question and it owner and she does belong to the libs.

That's an absurd construction to try to place on Mackay's comment.

Don't you knee-jerking Cons understand that such convolutions merely reflect as badly on your honesty as they do on Mackay's?

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

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

Even with that wording the fact that even the lib said that Mackay said Go ask her, you have her. would still mean go ask Stonach, you have her. Where is there a inferred insult even. Since Stronach knows the dog in question and it owner and she does belong to the libs.

What lib said Mackay said "go ask her"? I hadn't heard that.

He said "you have her" in reference to the dog comment.

The idea you're trying to float that Mackay was indicating the questioner should go ask Stronach about his dog is quite funny! It wasn't his dog, something you're obviously not aware of. It was a photo op staged with the neighbours dog. :lol:

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

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

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

Classic faux-intellectual liberal.

One can't be smart and be conservatives because "no-one (smart) ever said Cons were smart." (sic)

It is so clearly obvious how wrong the Conservatives are that no 'smart' person could ever support them?

There is a reason why personal attacks are against the rules of the forum. It limits debate and is childish. Please respect the rules.

watching&waiting · October 22, 2006

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 ( 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

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

There is a reason why personal attacks are against the rules of the forum. It limits debate and is childish. Please respect the rules.

That is the heights of hypocrisy Ricki after you're generalized attacks on all Liberals. Either smarten up yourself or quit pointing your victims finger at everyone else.

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

That is the heights of hypocrisy Ricki after you're generalized attacks on all Liberals. Either smarten up yourself or quit pointing your victims finger at everyone else.

Do explain what a generalized attack is? And try and do so without utilizing an analogy of dubious value.

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

It is so clearly obvious how wrong the Conservatives are that no 'smart' person could ever support them?

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.

watching&waiting · October 22, 2006

Ricki It si only because they know they are losing the debate and that is why the name and the put downs are coming. Yes I will proabbly hold my own in that but I would rather not have to. As usual the Libs are agin breaking apart. Just go see them at their own leadship debates and you will see them turning on each other like jackels. Not a pretty site.

Canadian Blue · October 22, 2006

A bigger waste of time was posting the garbage in the first place.
It amazes me how you're silent over personal attacks from the rightwingers here, but if a leftie even accuses someone of being "confused" you're up in arms.

GH why do you feel that anybody that doesn't agree with you is inferior? My accusation in an early post can't be garbage, you just keep showing your true colours. As well alot of smart journalists have said that Harper is intelligent, they must all be stupid then. So far your the one that jumps out in my mind of somebody who is elitist, and believes that only a small proportion of Canadian's are far superior to other Canadian's simply because they will vote Liberal.

BTW, I know smart women who vote for the New Democrats, Greens, and Liberals. I also know extremely stupid people that vote for the conservatives. It's pretty hard to pinpoint whether your political leanings make you stupid or smart.

While people are getting killed over in Sudan the greatest issue facing the country is a three word sentence thats open to interpetation.