liberal: it's flooding down in Texas.
conservative: everything's changed after 9/11.
conservative: it's flooding down in Texas.
liberal: it's global warming and it's Bush's fault .
Freeduck:
Where are the examples?
Page or two back. Actually, my bad, I didn't post the one from O'Reilly and the one from Hannity because I was waiting for your example. So there's only one example.
Part 2 of 'how conservatives argue:'
2. Use fear as your friend.
Why try to convince someone using logical reasoning when you can simply scare them into doing what you want? Even some liberals will vote conservative, because of the implication that Conservatives are more worried about security. Part of this has to do with the fact that the armed forces are classically conservative, and people automatically tend to (errroneously) associate classic conservatism with modern conservatives. This allows the Republican/conservative to paint himself as the only one concerned with defense; by definition. Not good.
We can see countless examples of fear-mongering, not just in the past, but in our own modern-day conservatives. Fear is good for hiding the truth; and they can always slip back into the 'national security' excuse when people attack their position: 'What, you criticize our overly aggresive response to being provoked? You obviously don't care about NATIONAL SECURITY, the most important thing in our lives, period.'
3. Ignore your own logical contradictions.
It doesn't matter whatsoever if you are contradicting yourself logically. Most people are too stupid to figure it out by themselves, and this lets you argue different positions at different times based upon whatever suits you best politically. This also allows you to use faulty reasoning and get away with it; for example, Welfare is under constant attack b/c people are 'lazy, and deserve what they get, and therefore deserve no assistance;' and yet, we must invade foreign countries, b/c the people there need our assistance. Hmm.
4. Continually resort to ad hominem attacks.
Can't defeat your opponent's position? Attack his character. Call him 'Un-American' or 'anti-American.' Invent insipid phrases such as BlameAmericaFirst. Use your cronies to imply that decorated war heroes are actually frauds, ignoring your own personal shameful record. Paint your opponents as 'pro-gay,' and therefore, 'anti-family,' because we know the two are incompatible. Insult his wife. Whatever. Basically, it's Jerry Springer out there. Because image matters so much more than substance...
5. Preach an easy solution for everything.
Every issue can be dumbed down enough to get votes. That's all that matters. You can see the Pres. on TV saying, 'It's your money! Your money!' when discussing SS. While it is clearly obvious that the president doesn't understand the first ******* thing about SS, the paragraphs of mumbo-jumbo he repeats aren't what gets played on the evening news; it's the 5-second sound byte, the easy solution, that attracts voters.
Paint your opponent as an 'ivory tower intellectual,' and every time he complains that there aren't easy solutions to things, take the opportunity to insult him again. This not only wins points with a large body of voters, it puts the opponent in the position of being forced to explain complicated concepts, never a good thing in politics.
This allows you to get away with anything you want, really. For example, selling trickle-down economics to the poor: 'we're going to help everyone, by helping the rich first, and then the money will trickle down to you!' Sounds simple, right? It's a lot more complicated than that. Bush's SS plan is the same thing; it proposes what seems to be a simple plan without explaining to people just how badly they are going to be f*cked over by it.
6. Never admit error or fault. Ever.
Self-explanatory. It doesn't matter how wrong you were, just ignore it and it will go away. Better yet, raise the terror alert threat level to orange and distract everyone. If you HAVE to admit you are wrong, do it on a Fri. afternoon when the weekend news cycle will have to absorb the info, and can soften the blow of breaking stories.
Lots of morons out there take a refusal to admit fault as 'steadfastness,' or 'holding the course 'till it's through.' Make sure you take advantage of this fact as much as possible by repeating these claims every time someone points out an error.
7. Always make yourself out to be the victim.
This may be the most important one. The conservative angle over the last 30 years, in response to rising Liberalism in this country, has been to paint themselves as an opposition party, whether they are in power or not. This unifies people in a way that mere policy cannot.
Pop quiz: Who is the enemy of the conservative? 1. Gays 2. Liberals 3. Taxes 4. Immigrants 5. Foriegners 6. Logic 7. All of the above. You can find an issue that sets everyone off if you dig deep enough, and you can blame problems on society continually if you do so. Blame shifting is an important part of this whole proccess.
For example, we aren't to blame in Iraq for the deaths there; it's the 'insurgents and terrorists' who are at fault. We aren't to blame for terrorism, at all, it's the 'drug dealers and criminals' who finance them, not our oil purchases. Corporate scandal and crime isn't to blame for poor market performance in America, it's 'too many taxes on businesses and the rich.' You can see how no matter what the problem is, it's never our fault with conservatives, ever.
This gives them a continual cause, a continual issue to rally around. Pick the issue, blame it on someone else, manipulate people using fear, give them a seemingly simple solution, and ignore the truth when it comes out. I'm sure I don't need to cite examples of this in our modern day.
8. Truth isn't as important as image - ever.
People, unfortunately, don't give a flying f*ck about the truth. They care about image. They don't care about substance, they care about style. This can be manipulated. How? Take a pack of theives, liars, crooks, and criminals, put them in charge of the country, and then put a puppet who appears to be religous and caring and simple in front of the whole mess. Then procede to lie continually for four years, classify documents which should be open, oppose things and then take credit for them when they pass, etc. Even if you are caught in a lie, it doesn't matter; the amount of people who find out that you weren't telling the truth will be miniscule compared to the number that hear the sound-byte lie.
I'm sure there are plenty that I've left off of the list; and this is only a general run-down of my impressions of their tactics. We'll move on to a more specific case analysis later on if anyone wants to, and I'd like to set up some sample arguments/debates where both sides attempt to use the conservative tactic, so we can see how it goes.
Cheers!
Cycloptichorn
The major problem with conservatism and especially neo-conservatism is that it's difficult to tell it apart from religious fundamentalism. The neo's want to try and look progressive which is a lot of smoke-and-mirror tactics for going backwards, not forwards.
spendius wrote:MG:-
No.The boisenberry jar had a label on.
Well,
obviously it had a label on. The jam jars in your larder are unlikely to be laid up labelless, laddie. The conservative in you is peeking out from under that anorak. First the trains, now this. Jamspotting.
Okeydoke. Here's the Hannity one I promised.
Quote: back in '94 when the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in 40 years, the liberals in the media kept referring to "angry white men." Now this selection has become the "bigoted Christian redneck." And you've heard a lot of these criticisms in the voting and everything, and this "red America, Jesus land." What are your thoughts on the way people are reacting to the election?
DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, Sean, there is always a spin, there is always a backlash, there is always an effort to marginalize the conservative that's been electedI think there's an anti-Christian bias here. Am I reading this right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138571,00.html <emphasis mine>
Lightwizard wrote:The major problem with conservatism and especially neo-conservatism is that it's difficult to tell it apart from religious fundamentalism. ...
A major problem with liberalism is that it's difficult to tell it apart from socialism.
Ticomaya wrote:
A major problem with liberalism is that it's difficult to tell it apart from socialism.
Actually, I think, it's always difficult to cut sharp borders between similar political ideas.
Even between identically named - you wouldn't like to be compared with French conservatism, would you
What if Bill Clinton had been true to his redneck roots?
KS: Did you or did you not have sex with that woman?
BC: Of course ah did. Ah banged the snot out uv 'er.
KS: You "banged the snot out of her?"
BC: Dang raght ah did. Done the little horny toad up good.
KS: So you did have sex with her?
BC: Heck yeah, and that there stain on her dress, that was a helluva good shot if ah do say so myself.
That was a good one, McG.
Here's one from O'Reilly. It's got vicitmization and projection all rolled up into one with a dash of vengefulness. How he entertains me. Anybody remember if he was this outraged about the Monica Lewinsky tapes?
Quote:O'REILLY: I will submit to you that only on "The O'Reilly Factor" will you hear this kind of a discussion. You will not see it in "The New York Times," which gleefully did the article on it, gleefully.
KNEALE: Right.
O'REILLY: You know, give me the dirt, give me the sneaky stuff.
KNEALE: There's certain things...
O'REILLY: That's what I want.
KNEALE: Yes.
O'REILLY: The New York Times just won a bunch of Polk awards. Give me the dirt. You know, and I'm getting fed up with it. I think that Americans have got to make a stand and say there's an honest way to make money and there's a dishonest way. And this for a friend of anybody's family to do this, I hope Bush gets them. I hope Bush audits them. I hope Bushes has guys follow them around and gets them. That's what I would do.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148329,00.html
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Ah, yes, definetely synonyms, that is, in the fundamentalist's constricted mind.
For those who want to rewrite the dictionary and re-lable a boysenberry jam as strawberry, it's a No. 10 and No. 2.
The conservative stealthy dogma regarding business is that the large corporations should be in control of the government, definitely not a liberal ideal. In other words, those who have the gold make the rules. They are for the individual only if they step in line a by their control, either governmental, religious or in business, will walk the very narrow line of conservatism (fundamentalism), too much of it extreme. There are not that many true liberals in the country -- it has little to do with being left or right in the current political spectrum. That there is confusion is a given -- there are those who will be eternally confused.
(There is socialism on the convervative right, try National Socialism).
Lightwizard wrote:(There is socialism on the convervative right, try National Socialism).
oh no, l.w... that was completely different.
that was all about a meglomaniacal and puritanical ideologue (and his religious and corporation cronies ) that having previously failed at every other work attempted in life finally found fame, fortune and power by rallying a depressed nation to a cause through fear, intimidation and the instilling of a superiority complex based on religious and social beliefs. those not joining in the mass hysteria were castigated, threatened and then finally rounded up and disposed of to maintain the purity of the nations "traditional values"...
so you can see, lwizard, nothing like that could ever happen in america.
