Posted by
C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:38:08 AM
I'm happy we conservatives are finally getting the gumption to go out and protest. Liberals despise this, as they should. They like to keep us "barefoot and pregnant"; unable to do much except producing more wealth for them to redistribute. Liberals like to think of themselves as Robin Hood, robbing the rich to feed the poor. Upon inspection, however, the analogy reverses itself. Robin Hood's enemy was, after all, government. His giveaways were to taxpayers. I think he'd have fit right in at last weeks's events (maybe as a guest speaker).
Groups such as CNN, MSNBC, and the big three alphabet networks were aghast at the protests. They tried to equate what they were seeing to what they were expecting. Most of them, after all, had been protesters at some time or other; they knew what it was all about. But that's where they went wrong.
I write the following as a reference manual for liberal reporters on how to tell whether a given protest is liberal or conservative.
Difference #1: Odor. Conservative protests generally smell much better than liberal ones. There are several reasons for this. First, the hygeine of American citizens is generally much better than that of foreigners, with the exception of our homeless. However, the homeless only show up in large numbers at liberal rallies, where they are promised booze or a joint if they'll hold a sign for an hour or so. The combined smells of homeless people, foreigners, and hippies whose main source of protein is beans all combine into a toxic cloud which permeates the premesis for days afterward. In addition, there is always a strange, almost fuzzy odor hanging around at a liberal protest, something akin to the smell of burning walnut branches. (I think this smell is the inspiration for much of what passes for thought in the liberal world.) Conservative rallies, on the other hand, generally smell of Old Spice and baby powder.
Difference #2: Venue. By venue I do not necessarily mean the choice of venue, but the condition the venue is left in after the protest is over. Conservatives do not roll cars, break into storefronts, or light tires on fire. Even at a relatively peaceful liberal gathering, the ground is apt to be littered with spent matches, alcohol containers, an assortment of small plastic sacks, and a couple of passed-out homeless people who are sleeping off their motivation for having shown up. Conservative protests, however, often leave the venue cleaner than when the rally started. I credit this to the law-and-order attitude of most conservatives and to the fact that many either have been or still are active Boy Scouts. If you want to know who really cares about the environment, check out the ground after a rally.
Difference #3: Sign messages. Conservatives generally use complete sentences in our signage. Why? You need a complete sentence to express a complete thought. Liberal signs tend to reflect liberal thinking: fragmented grammar for fragmented minds. Liberals don't finish out their thoughts, because then they'd have to think, and thinking really kills a good buzz. A conservative sign might read, "Don't tax my future." A liberal sign would read, "Bush = racist pig." One makes a case, the other calls names. When we call names, it's generally backed up with some evidence, as in: "The budget is an Obamination! Stop wasting our children's money!" Liberals call names to distract from their lack of a point; conservatives call names to enhance the point they are making.
Difference #4: Chanting. In my opinion, chanting is close to the lowest form of human communication, somewhere above a pelvic thrust but below a whistle. Liberals love to chant. It's all they know how to do. Try arguing with one; you're apt to get a chant, or series of chants, as a reply. They often rhyme: "Bush lied, people died! No blood for oil!" However, they do not generally hold up under analysis. What did Bush lie about? Is it a lie to be mistaken, or only to knowingly tell a falsity? These kinds of questions are easily avoided by simply repeating the chant more loudly. Soon, it becomes a solid truth in the mind of the chanter. It really is a form of indoctrination. When conservatives chant, something we do far less of than liberals, it's a request for action: "Throw the bums out!" The message is not used to obscure the facts, or to over-simplify a complex situation. The chant is only to show unity of purpose. "Drill, baby, drill!" is a perfect example of this.
Difference #5: Speakers. The people making the speeches at a rally vary greatly between the two groups. The first variable is criminal history. It is quite rare for a conservative speaker to be an ex-convict, but quite common for a liberal one to be a criminal. Criminals are heroes to liberals, who eschew the idea of a society based around law and order. (Whose law? Whose order?) Secondly, the use of illicit drugs is a factor. Many, if not most, liberal speakers have used (and continue to use) illegal narcotics. (Then again, half the audience is stoned as well.) The opposite is true of conservative speakers. Also, conservative speakers are far less screechy than liberal ones. Liberal speakers whine and complain. They generally avoid mention of the Founding Fathers, whereas conservative speakers quote heavily from them. Conservatives will mention a list of facts, building to a rational conclusion. Liberals generally balk at facts, relying more upon emotional arguments. Do and don't are common conservative verbs. Should and shouldn't are common liberal ones. Finally, conservative speakers are generally more articulate in the English language, recent presidents excepted. That's why liberals were so happy to have found Obama. He's the exception to the rule, just as George W. Bush was to ours.
Well, if anyone in the MSM is reading this, I hope it helps. I know a conservative rally doesn't bring back flashes of Berkeley in the Sixties, but it's a rally nonetheless. Now you'll know what to look for.