The conservative need for false masculinity, or GOP = Village People

[ShannonCT]

I am not blaming anyone. I am saying conservatives are wussies who talk a big game but can't put their money where their mouth is.

That is just the nature of an internet forum. There are just as many liberals on this forum who don't act on the big words coming from their mouths. Words don't cost much.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Sounds like a Brokeback joke.

Oh. I never saw the movie so I wouldn't know. I have however heard that the main characters were sheep herders, not cowboys.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have however heard that the main characters were sheep herders, not cowboys.

Well, the same could be said for the so-called "cowboys" in the conservative leadership.

 

[Neomega]

That is just the nature of an internet forum. There are just as many liberals on this forum who don't act on the big words coming from their mouths. Words don't cost much.

what big words? You mean like those huge boastful claims we shoudl be conserving energy and recycling?

cheering war makes you sound tough... but it don't mean squat. Liberals, on the other hand, usually don't try to sound tough. It doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they don't feel the need to put up some macho front.

conservatives are the ones claiming this war is necessary to the very survival of western civilization, adn yet the best most of them can do is type furiously and drive to and from work saying "yeah!, yeah!" as they listen to their right wing radio.

 

[Leonel]

what big words? You mean like those huge boastful claims we shoudl be conserving energy and recycling?

cheering war makes you sound tough... but it don't mean squat. Liberals, on the other hand, usually don't try to sound tough. It doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they don't feel the need to put up some macho front.

conservatives are the ones claiming this war is necessary to the very survival of western civilization, adn yet the best most of them can do is type furiously and drive to and from work saying "yeah!, yeah!" as they listen to their right wing radio.

Well if we wanted to go to extremes in support, if a person is so against the war, why don't they go over there and stop it themselves? Lay in front of a tank or blow up some soldiers to force a withdrawal. If the whole "If you support it, why don't you join it" mantra is applicable, shouldn't there be a "If you're against it, why don't you stop it" mantra too?

I know I'm going off topic (ironically) from the op but it's been bugging me.

 

[Sidhe]

Well if we wanted to go to extremes in support, if a person is so against the war, why don't they go over there and stop it themselves? Lay in front of a tank or blow up some soldiers to force a withdrawal. If the whole "If you support it, why don't you join it" mantra is applicable, shouldn't there be a "If you're against it, why don't you stop it" mantra too?

I know I'm going off topic (ironically) from the op but it's been bugging me.

That would be stupid, you'd get far more done by protesting and lobbying than by lying in front of tanks. Certainly worked in the Vietnam war.

If you want to do something that much then get elected to public office, at least your vote might actually achieve something? Some non middle Eastern Arabs do exactly what you suggest although it's probably rare.

 

[Neomega]

Well if we wanted to go to extremes in support, if a person is so against the war, why don't they go over there and stop it themselves? Lay in front of a tank or blow up some soldiers to force a withdrawal. If the whole "If you support it, why don't you join it" mantra is applicable, shouldn't there be a "If you're against it, why don't you stop it" mantra too?

I know I'm going off topic (ironically) from the op but it's been bugging me.

Because they object to the needless killing of people. What good would needless killing do to prove their point? It would be hypocritical (and that's bad). That is why by and large, a vast majority of protesters are peaceful. It is ridiculous to use violence to denounce violence.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well if we wanted to go to extremes in support, if a person is so against the war, why don't they go over there and stop it themselves?

I'm fighting the war supporters over here so they don't have to get drafted to go over there.

 

[Elrohir]

There are rude nutsos on both sides. Implying that it's only a conservative problem is ignorant and wrong.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Of course the Republican Party has a propaganda machine, if its supporters realized its politicians were corrupt guys who weren't interested in free markets or reducing entitlements, they might not get re-elected!

The article would have been better without dumb appeals to emotion, though, especially regarding Presidents Reagan and Carter; Reagan's tougher Cold War policy was far better than Carter's "screw over the nuclear energy future of the US" policy, at least as far in negotiating with the USSR and acting in the best interest of the future of the US went.

 

[ShannonCT]

what big words? You mean like those huge boastful claims we shoudl be conserving energy and recycling?

If you want to start there, just look at Captain Environment Al Gore and his wasteful personal energy consumption.

cheering war makes you sound tough... but it don't mean squat. Liberals, on the other hand, usually don't try to sound tough. It doesn't mean they aren't, it just means they don't feel the need to put up some macho front.

You're right. Liberals don't usually try to sound tough. Liberals usually try to sound holy: like playing the role of Savior of Black Americans while always keeping most of them poor enough to need government help.

conservatives are the ones claiming this war is necessary to the very survival of western civilization, adn yet the best most of them can do is type furiously and drive to and from work saying "yeah!, yeah!" as they listen to their right wing radio.

The Armed Forces are meeting its recruiting goals. Having more volunteers isn't going to put more troops on the ground in Iraq, especially now with Democrats in control of Congress. Conservative Americans are doing more than their share in serving this country.

 

[Neomega]

The Armed Forces are meeting its recruiting goals. Having more volunteers isn't going to put more troops on the ground in Iraq, especially now with Democrats in control of Congress. Conservative Americans are doing more than their share in serving this country.

Because it lowered its goals and requirements...



with all the big talk, there should be an overflow of recruits.

Liberals usually try to sound holy: like playing the role of Savior of Black Americans while always keeping most of them poor enough to need government help.

most black Americans are not poor enough to need government help.



whatever dude... and as if Conservative Christians don't try to sound holy more....

But the topic was tough, not holy.

 

[Red Door]

There are rude nutsos on both sides. Implying that it's only a conservative problem is ignorant and wrong.

QFT. There are nuts on both sides.

If you want to start there, just look at Captain Environment Al Gore and his wasteful personal energy consumption.

You mean the same article that was proved false in this forum.

You're right. Liberals don't usually try to sound tough. Liberals usually try to sound holy: like playing the role of Savior of Black Americans while always keeping most of them poor enough to need government help.

Yeah, since Conservatives are doing a real great job at helping them, like by cutting the taxes of the really rich people, who in most cases, aren't black.

The Armed Forces are meeting its recruiting goals. Having more volunteers isn't going to put more troops on the ground in Iraq, especially now with Democrats in control of Congress. Conservative Americans are doing more than their share in serving this country.

Same with Liberals. They make up a very good percentage of the military as the MilitaryTimes polls suggest by their support (or dissupport) of the war.

 

[sonorakitch]

Not living in the US I'm not going to comment on your experience since we're specifically discussing US conservatives. However, do you think there's anything wrong in the examples the article points out?

I'm sure you remember the conservative propaganda at the 2004 elections making the decorated Vietnam veteran Kerry into some wuss while Bush jr. who was never even near a war time and time again was hailed as a masculine hero.

The conservative political movement in the US has been all about macho image for decades. Reagan is the icon of a 'tough guy' for millions of Americans. His entire style was straight out of one of his Hollywood flicks, it was incredibly staged. The same is the case with Bush jr. I'm not talking about their politics here, simply the ridiculous image and behavior associated with this whole modus operandi.

Politics is already full of acting, wearing cowboy costumes and fighter pilot outfits is beyond ridiculous.

I am more commenting out of the experience of my liberal friends and aquaintances...most of whom solidly fit the term "metrosexual". I won't defend Bush as being Mr. Tough Guy, but I will say that Reagan bought the Casa del Cielo long before his Presidential aspirations and may simply have wanted a peaceful place to spend the weekends. I think the article contains a little overanalysis.

For the mainstream Democrat public officials, though, I have to say they just do it to themselves.

Oh well. Back to my M4 practice in the backyard.

~Chris