Fellow Conservatives: what's with our public image?

[LoneWolf23k]

If there's one thing that seriously ticks me off about the liberals, it's how they constantly portray us conservatives as monsters who want to slaughter poor people, or gun nuts who'll shoot anything that moves, or stupid rednecks.

Do most liberals actually believe this BS?

[RHJunior]

No, but they found that such verbal attacks will make the average conservative fold like wet toast. Which is why they continue to use those attacks.... some few stupid will believe it, the rest will merely parrot it to dispirit us, and to maintain their illusion of superiority.



We're too busy being "nice," and, frankly, doing with the liberals what the liberals want to do with the frothing Islamic leaders--- trying to engage them in polite debate. Which is rather like trying to fight with the Marcus of Queensbury rules when the opposition has five friends and they're all swinging lead pipes and tire irons.

After a certain point, my friend, being polite with a lunatic only reenforces their delusions of validity. And some "ideas" favored by the left that conservatives meet with debate are undeserving of anything but openly expressed scorn.

That's why liberals rage and gnash their teeth on Anne Coulter. She doesn't merely deliver facts of the case against liberalism--- which are damning enough--- she delivers them with a heaping dose of withering, soul-blasting <I>scorn....</i> Something their dear little hearts haven't encountered in their entire, tofu-fed, progressive-nurtured, self-affirmation-centerd lives. She actually uses their own vitriolic rhetoric <I>against THEM.</I> And what makes it worse is that it's delivered wrapped around the TRUTH. How DARE she!

The problem with conservatives is that they've lost the balls it takes to look the typical blithering liberal in the eye and say "you're a frigging idiot. Now shut up and get on the short bus, Bingo."

[Sebastis]

Most of the bad image is becaue instead of our leadership having a back bone and actually standing up for themselves they let this Miniority Rights crap actually fly.

The Miniority is the miniority for a reason. Because no one likes their ideas. Why this isn't resonating with the conservative leadership to bolster them up in their conservatism I have no Idea.

[TMLutas]

The problem of the "bad image" of conservatism is that you actually give importance to those slanderers and libelers who use false pejorative terms as a battering ram. Keeping calm, stepping back, and disassembling their arguments (such as they are) with class is the only response that works.

The kicker is that things are getting better, not worse lately. Nobody, so far as I know, has ever accused President Bush of wanting to start a nuclear war and end the world. That's a common one from the history books of political invective aimed at Republicans. There are others. Some charges have just outlived their usefulness. We can and are growing that list.

[Detrius]

...maybe it's the constant over-generalization? ;P

[Reignbow]

The first thing I'd do is zoom in a little bit and specidy - there is no such thing as "the liberals", any more than there is "the conservatives." Groups of 100 mio. people or more simply cannot be coherent in opinion, action and competence. Then I'd filter out the total bullshitters and the ones going for cheap shots and strawmen. These tactics are well known, and they all work by saying things the speaker doesn't believe themselves.

When that is done, what you have left is criticism worth listening too. But remember that different groups have different motivations, so criticism will flat out contradict. From what I can glean from the media, the most common points are these:

* the president is not competent
* the war in Iraq lacks justification and/or is not beneficial in fighting terrorism
* our enemies breaking the rules does not justify us breaking them too (specifically with reference to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib). This is usually compounded by the fact that there seems to be little active benefit to both places.
* same-sex civil unions are do no damage to society, yet are opposed (mostly on religious grounds)

There's a large number of smaller issues, but you're all well aware of them. Note that the above are not my opinions.

Part 2 of the PR dilemma (if it exists, I'm not quite so sure of that) is that some real bastards claim the label of "conservatives" for themselves. This is the thing with the coherent groups again, only the other way around now. Example no 1 is Rev. Phelps, who I suppose qualifies as crusader against homosexuality (a wonder the man hasn't been shot yet., though). Another is the site godhatesfags.com, which among others things proposes showing up at Hollywood Pride with a big sign saying "God Hates Fags" and promises that within minutes, violence will befall the innocent protestor. Gee. I think I'll show up at a Holocaust memorial ceremony with a sign saying "Hitler should have killed you all" and lo! the innate jewish tendency towards violence will be revealed. </sarcasm>

So, to sum up:
* some of that criticism just isn't worth listening to
* some is, have answers for it (better than "we're at war, man!")
* have some minimum standards for what you accept as part of the conservative spectrum

Reignbow

PS:

We can and are growing that list.

Warning: You may be exposed to excessive amounts of marketing speak in your daily life. In your own interest, reduction of exposure is advised. Plants can be grown, but lists can only be added to or lengthened

[BrockthePaine]

If there's one thing that seriously ticks me off about the liberals, it's how they constantly portray us conservatives as monsters who want to slaughter poor people, or gun nuts who'll shoot anything that moves, or stupid rednecks.

Do most liberals actually believe this BS?

Since when did we care what the liberals thought about us? This is real life, not American Idle...

[Sebastis]

Good Point!! Why should we care what they think? They tend to be some of the most self absorbed people in the world. Besides asking questions like this seems like something they would do. Taking too much time to contemplate your navel tends to make you a little short sighted.

[IronFox]

A very wise man once said to me "If you are in a debate with someone, and if they have to resort to insulting you to win, you've already won. When a liberal insults you, they have stopped making the debate about what you were arguing about, since they can't win it, and have made it about you." I think this is pretty helpful to consider in light of the current debate.
And yes, in the long run, why the bloody screaming hell should we care what they think? There is nothing that a person who believes in themself can do.

[LoneWolf23k]

Since when did we care what the liberals thought about us? This is real life, not American Idle...

I guess I'm a bit more thin-skinned about it then I oughta.. But then I've had a long history of getting insulted and mocked for what I am.

Being called a Geek? I'm smegging proud of it now. Being called fat? I'm a bit pudgy, I'll admit, but I try to watch my weight.

But being called a monster because of my beliefs? I take serious exception to insults on my honor.

The way I see it, if being a Conservative means I'm automatically someone who's in favor of killing poor people for the rich, then that means I can automatically call any Liberal Stalin and Mao-loving marxists who are in favor of slaughtering the rich and educated, and who'll send anyone who disagree with'em into concentration camps...

[UncleMonty]

The liberal/progressive method hasn't changed. It has become more intense. "Keep making up false accusations and slander; keep throwing mud." OK, not quite mud... More like the behavior of a chimpanzee, which will defecate in its own hand and fling it at you.
The mistake is in attempting to give rational debate in return. When an ape is screaming and flinging shit at you, reading to it from a "Miss Manners" primer will only provide it entertainment and waste time you could better spend elsewhere.

There are some who parrot the liberal line, who aren't yet completely unable to think coherently, though. In those cases, a brief attempt at rational conversation might be useful as a sort of test.

This has nothing to do with what a person calls himself or herself, of course. A neo-nazi might call himself "conservative" while demanding stricter gun controls. A self-avowed socialist might speak out for individual rights. I choose to judge a man's politics by his deeds, rather than judging his deeds by the man's politics.

[Grumpywolfhound]

Just tossing my .02 in...
Basic communications 101, ya have to be on the same freq for two or more people to talk.

found a much better explanation than my incoherant ramblings http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
After reading the first post be sure to scroll down and read "tribes" too.

[BrockthePaine]

Just tossing my .02 in...
Basic communications 101, ya have to be on the same freq for two or more people to talk.

found a much better explanation than my incoherant ramblings http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
After reading the first post be sure to scroll down and read "tribes" too.

Dang, that's a GOOD READ! I passed the link on to folks... thanks for that.

[Sasjhwa]

My problem with the entire liberal vs. conservative/red state vs. blue state issue is that each side has their extremists who yell from the rooftops and the latest bestseller that the other side is nothing but evil people out to destroy America. People fall for that and turn people like Ann Coulter into heroes for what amounts to little more than frothing at the mouth. I use her as an example, but the Liberals have just as many people guilty of it. The truth is somewhere far to the middle of the arguement, but we listen to people like that and allow ourselves to be divided and start distrusting our neighbors because they have a John Kerry or George Bush bumper sticker on their car.

As a people I believe we would be happier with less extremeists yelling in our ears what to believe and more politicians listening to the voices of the moderates. The problem is that moderates aren't exciting enough to raise huge controversies with poison commentaries. They may be best for the country, but don't get their message heard over the Bill O'Reillys and Michael Moores in their colorful wrestling gear swinging chairs at each other's head.

[Maxgoof]

There's only one problem with the previous entry's reasoning:

Let's go back to 1985. Where were the extremists on both side yelling from the rooftops? Rush Limbaugh had yet to reach a national audience. Sean Hannity was nowhere to be seen. The Fox Network had not been formed.

There were a few idiots on the left, but they were basically ignored.

So, we should have had a nice reasoned discourse of the issues.

But we didn't. Why? Because the press itself was biased to the left. This has been repeatedly documented.

It was because of this bias in the press that Rush Limbaugh was able to skyrocket to fame. He filled a vaccuum. It is not without good reason that he calls himself "equal time."

But the left, who thought their views were mainstream saw him and others that followed as a threat to reasoned discourse (i.e. unapposed propaganda) and have been attempting to either silence or shout them down ever since.

Thus, the situation we have today.

[Earl McClaw]

Let's go back to 1985.

Why stop there? From even a limited viewing of the History Channel, you should be able to find periods throughout history where people (even good old U.S. of Americans) polarized into camps and demonized their opposites. Sure, things may have been quiet in '85 (although I suspect not - I just wasn't paying attention, still aren't), but that's more likely the exception rather than the rule.

Am I surprised the press/media is liberal? No. They have to keep looking for something "new" to attract and keep readers (i.e. buyers). Being conservative implies a certain degree of resistance to new things.

[Grumpywolfhound]

Polarized politics goes WAY back, so nobody should be really surprised by any of the antics on either side of the aisle. The trick to getting any important stuff done is to get enough people to pull their heads out and take a situation seriously.

Heck, during WWII the democrats were the "warmongers"! But... they got the job done. And in the end, that's all that really mattered.

I call myself a repuplican now, but only because for the moment they seem to be taking the threat of islamofacism more seriously than any one else. I expect this to change given enough time, and I'll back who ever's next that sees the problem with open eyes.


As far as the media? they're nothing more than psuedo-intellectual poseurs trying to create nothing less than a post-modern ruling class. The absolute worse insult we can hit them with is the indifference they've already been shown, so keep up the good work!

[UncleMonty]

I used to have few if any real problems with the members of any particular political party. The Democratic party used to be left-leaning, but fairly civilized about it. However, the modern Democratic party is run as a political machine under the DNC, which is headed by Howard Dean, a man who is either delusional or fanatic. The DNC is also in charge of collecting funds to get Democrats elected, just as the RNC does fund-raising for Republican candidates. The DNC collects the major part of its revenue from a small number of extremely wealthy people, while the Republican party's revenue is primarily made up of small donations from a lot of less-affluent people. Because of this, ultra-wealthy people like George Soros hold a great deal of power over the Democratic party.
Who is George Soros? Look it up, it reads like the villain in a James Bond movie.

In short... The Democratic party is currently owned and operated by "Extremists".

[TMLutas]

PS:

We can and are growing that list.

Warning: You may be exposed to excessive amounts of marketing speak in your daily life. In your own interest, reduction of exposure is advised. Plants can be grown, but lists can only be added to or lengthened

In my case, the term probably comes from all the computer programmers I hang around with. My current exposure to marketers is somewhat minimal since I have no TV and subscribe to no papers so it's all popup and intersticial ads for my personal exposure. Well, maybe a bit of talk radio...

[Detrius]

If there's one thing that seriously ticks me off about the liberals, it's how they constantly portray us conservatives as monsters who want to slaughter poor people, or gun nuts who'll shoot anything that moves, or stupid rednecks.

Do most liberals actually believe this BS?

I can't help but wonder.... why do you ask such a question in a conservative forum like this one? Most of what you'll get will be subjective guesswork from other conservatives - if you're really interested in getting an answer, join a liberal forum and ask the people themselves.