Vote Conservative

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,035
1,221
223
#1
For those that don't know about American (and probably Australian and British) history ... Here is a condensed version:


Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:


1. Liberals, Socialists and sundry other do-gooders.
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.


Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement...

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.


Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. Those became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.


Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals/Socialists like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.


Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, Truck drivers, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.


Liberals/Socialists produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. They are keen to be appreciated abroad and therefore give away shedloads of other people's ( taxpayers ) money to the starving millions, undeserving or too lazy to help themselves. Liberals/Socialists believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

It's a little known fact that many liberals/Socialists wear frilly knickers. usually pink.


Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal/Socialist may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to p1ss them off.
 
Last edited:

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,035
1,221
223
#2
The same old buzz words are back

NEW and CHANGE

These 2 crop up at every election and nothing much changes after an initial flurry. The truth is most people hate change. The vested interests don't want change because they are in-line to make a load of money one way or another. The older and more mature watch as the 20 somethings froth at the mouth with real indignation at something or other. We have seen it all before again and again. We probably still remember when we were full of indignation at some supposed outrage or other

YAWN YAWN

Gordon "the pompous clot " Brown tries to pretend it wasn't his fault that the country is nearly broke, just like under Labour of the 1970s !

Young Cleggy makes out anyone who disagree with his fatuous policies is either insane or too old to matter. He wants a voting system that will deliver regular different Parliaments just like the Italian model. A collection of looney small parties wielding power well beyond their small numbers ! And to stick us into the Euro which is falling apart at the greased seams.

And that leaves us with the only sensible but awfully boring Tory party. Lets hope David " the prick" Cameron forgets all that nonsense about change. We want the good times back not some fly-by-night absurdities !!
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,035
1,221
223
#5
i'm voting for gordon brown because he managed to get the fittest wife once you discount for how ugly he is
Should we grade the wives ?

Perhaps under the headings
kissable
cuddliest
shaggable
fittest ? ( for what - Darwin's test ? )

out of ten
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,035
1,221
223
#6
I really wonder if the politics of Cornwall may be repeated nationally.
In the 80s we had Tory MPs
To be replaced by Labour in the 90s
To be replaced by the Liberals in 2000s
Can democracy really produce people of quality I ask myself or do the recent scandals suggest otherwise.
But what oh what are the alternatives ? Are there any ?
UKIP, BNP, Greens, Socialist Workers etc. - no it doesn't look like there are any VALID alternatives !!
 
Dec 22, 2008
675
91
38
#7
Don't vote for any of them. The only positive reult from this election would be a pitiful turnout. Lib / Lab / Con, it will be business as usual. There is nothing of substance separating the three main parties.

Why on earth does anyone care which identikit trough-gobbler sits in their name in the Westminster Regional Assembly? Sovereignity has passed from this country, as will beome increasingly obvious.
 

montmorencyt2w

Well-known member
May 17, 2008
2,620
294
93
#9
Don't vote, it only encourages them, as the saying goes.

The sad thing is that if there is a pitiable turnout, instead of wondering why seasoned voters are disaffected (with all of them), they will probably come up with gimmicks like putting the voting age down to twelve or something ridiculous.

I always find it amusing to think that when the late great David (Screaming Lord) Sutch first started, one of his main campaigning planks was "votes for teenagers", and this actually came to pass, for eighteen and nineteen year olds anyway.

Not the only thing he achieved, looking at this little history:

http://rosalyn.me.uk/loonyarchive/sutchhistory.html


Why can't we have characters any more? Charlie Kennedy pissed was a better man than Nick Clegg sober :)
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,035
1,221
223
#11
I expect many Germans felt the same in the 1933 elections.


Paul
Good point not to vote for some comical little man with a toothbrush mustache.
How many did Adolph get slaughtered ? Wasn't it 20 or 30 million give or take a million or two.

Yup - plod on with the boring imho. Gradual change for the better!!
 
Jan 14, 2003
8,421
870
173
UK
#12
If most of the electorate becomes too apathetic to vote then you can be sure that extremist voters won't be. Not voting gives more power to those of extremist tendencies in my view. If we get PR which Clegg wants then we will see a lot more seats going to extremists in parliament if most voters become increasing reluctant to vote.

Whilst I agree that the main parties are coming out with policies that have a lot to be desired and because of this we have little in the way of choice, I think to not vote for whatever reason is not good.


Paul
 

trendie

Well-known member
#13
If most of the electorate becomes too apathetic to vote then you can be sure that extremist voters won't be. Not voting gives more power to those of extremist tendencies in my view. If we get PR which Clegg wants then we will see a lot more seats going to extremists in parliament if most voters become increasing reluctant to vote.

Whilst I agree that the main parties are coming out with policies that have a lot to be desired and because of this we have little in the way of choice, I think to not vote for whatever reason is not good.


Paul
Maybe a shake-up is needed amongst the apathetic.
I have been musing over whether to vote BNP this time around.
Much lulz to be had.
 
Dec 22, 2008
675
91
38
#14
If most of the electorate becomes too apathetic to vote then you can be sure that extremist voters won't be. Not voting gives more power to those of extremist tendencies in my view. If we get PR which Clegg wants then we will see a lot more seats going to extremists in parliament if most voters become increasing reluctant to vote.

Whilst I agree that the main parties are coming out with policies that have a lot to be desired and because of this we have little in the way of choice, I think to not vote for whatever reason is not good.


Paul
Hi Paul,

Sorry, I see what you were getting at now. Whilst I understand your point of view, I think that the right not to vote is every bit as important as the right to vote - there has been talk in recent years of making it compulsory. I think this is typical of the modern political class - low turnouts are to be solved not through policies that appeal to the electorate, but rather via coercion.

I think as I have said that there is nothing of substance to separate the main parties, and that voting for whoever one deems to be the leat worst simply perpetuates the problem of a grubby, self-interested political class that has nothing to offer the country.

I think that the Tories are on the verge of collapse, and would struggle to survive another defeat. This would be a good thing as it would clear the way for a genuinely conservative alternative. I also think that the spectre of the Tory party is what gives ZaNu Liebour much of its strength - remove this, and it too could be in serious trouble.

I'm hoping for a low turnout to underline the lack of legitimacy of whichever rabble slithers over the finish line first.
 
Likes: Trader333

montmorencyt2w

Well-known member
May 17, 2008
2,620
294
93
#15
Good point not to vote for some comical little man with a toothbrush mustache.
How many did Adolph get slaughtered ? Wasn't it 20 or 30 million give or take a million or two.

Yup - plod on with the boring imho. Gradual change for the better!!

Supported by the Daily Mail at one time, I seem to remember.

EDIT: Or at least its proprietor:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...re-urged-hitler-to-invade-romania-485296.html


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUrothermere.htm

Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Evening News and the Daily Mail. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right and gave support to Oswald Mosley and the National Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, Hurrah for the Blackshirts, in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

The reason I bring up this is that it ill behoves supporters of the Conservatives to start making emotive comments regarding such matters, bearing in mind the history of some staunch Conservative-supporting people.
I realise we are straying into Godwin's Law territory here.
 
Last edited: