| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Kevin" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2006 02:30:55 PM |
| Object: |
If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
08 Nov 2006 03:28:58 PM |
|
|
"Kevin" <kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163017855.905042.5370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Answer: Cons!
"Cons" goes right over their pointy little heads. I prefer "Conservatrons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
08 Nov 2006 04:14:30 PM |
|
|
abracadabra wrote:
"Kevin" <kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163017855.905042.5370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Answer: Cons!
"Cons" goes right over their pointy little heads. I prefer "Conservatrons"
That's an interesting, and appropriate, label. However, I still think
Cons sums them up pretty well. One, they're made up mostly of
psuedo-CONservatives. Even their party is the RepubliCON party. And,
they're notorious confidence men, otherwise referred to as "cons" in
everyday language. They like to call liberals "libs", so it reasons
that conservatives are "cons".
But, I see what you mean by "Conservatron", since they are like
goosestepping dittoheads. Nothing much working upstairs, but they sure
as hell can repeat talking points.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
11 Nov 2006 02:53:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
abracadabra wrote:
"Kevin" <kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163017855.905042.5370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Answer: Cons!
"Cons" goes right over their pointy little heads. I prefer "Conservatrons"
That's an interesting, and appropriate, label. However, I still think
Cons sums them up pretty well. One, they're made up mostly of
psuedo-CONservatives. Even their party is the RepubliCON party. And,
they're notorious confidence men, otherwise referred to as "cons" in
everyday language. They like to call liberals "libs", so it reasons
that conservatives are "cons".
But, I see what you mean by "Conservatron", since they are like
goosestepping dittoheads. Nothing much working upstairs, but they sure
as hell can repeat talking points.
When you think of someone that is known as a "con" man, what traits
come to mind? One that gains your confidence, then uses that trust to
sneakily abuse you, right? Doesn't this EXACTLY describe hypocritical
RepubliCons? NeoCons? CONservatives? Indeed, it does.
Con men... that's what they are.
Just like they call liberals "libs", conservatives should be known as
"cons".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
08 Nov 2006 04:32:41 PM |
|
|
"Kevin" <kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163017855.905042.5370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lowlife unAmerican dogshit.
--
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
***************
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Anyone for tennis, wouldnt that be" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
11 Nov 2006 11:43:10 PM |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives?
Answer: Right.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bernie Hanssen" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
12 Nov 2006 02:56:39 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4556B46E.19A02EFB@yahoo.co.uk...
Kevin wrote:
Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives?
Answer: Right.
Con men?
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
14 Nov 2006 01:31:05 PM |
|
|
Bernie Hanssen wrote:
"Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis, wouldn't that be nice?')"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4556B46E.19A02EFB@yahoo.co.uk...
Kevin wrote:
Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives?
Answer: Right.
Con men?
Yep, con men. Cons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DeserTBoB" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
12 Nov 2006 01:19:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:43:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis,
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives?
Answer: Right<snip>
-'tards
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Albright" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
12 Nov 2006 09:15:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:43:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('Anyone for tennis,
wouldn't that be nice?')" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives?
Answer: Right.
Not according to the voters asswipe. Eat your heart out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NuGrass" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
08 Nov 2006 02:33:30 PM |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
Answer: Cons!
Pervs
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pedro Sanchez" |
|
| Title: Re: If Liberals are "Libs" then what are Conservatives? |
09 Nov 2006 11:35:16 AM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2006 12:30:55 -0800, "Kevin" <kevprice1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Answer: Cons!
No, the Answer is "Better"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill CIGAR Clinton" |
|
| Title: Howard Dean-"troops will get full support and funding"-i.e. NO PULLOUT from Iraq |
12 Nov 2006 04:33:53 AM |
|
|
complete turnaround now that the Iraq war is a DEMOCRAT
responsibility...
suddenly it's a patriotic war on the liberal drive by media news
channels...
gee, what a turnaround
reason ?
the Dems are in the frying pan now- let's watch and see what happens
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene" |
|
| Title: Re: Howard Dean-"troops will get full support and funding"-i.e. NO PULLOUT from Iraq |
12 Nov 2006 07:37:15 AM |
|
|
"Bill CIGAR Clinton" <dutyhonorcountry2@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1163327633.286245.254050@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
complete turnaround now that the Iraq war is a DEMOCRAT
responsibility...
suddenly it's a patriotic war on the liberal drive by media news
channels...
gee, what a turnaround
reason ?
the Dems are in the frying pan now- let's watch and see what happens
What a laugh. Your lying leaders were the ones saying the Democrats would
cut and run - and now you're all confused.
What a laugh.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
