Wow! I thought this was a pretty harmless question. You seemed to have touched a nerve. Notice how most did not answer the question and either (a) shifted the answer to your possible misnomer "neocons" when it is obvious you meant mainstream conservatives or (b) pointed the finger at democrats, or as they call them "libs"?
Calling those who disagree with the current leadership (and I use that term loosely) "unamerican" or saying they "hate america" is a way to deflect the scrutiny on to the person asking the hard questions. Since the current regime is factually pretty indefensible on the facts, the only way to answer a pointed question without completely losing face is to change the question or name call.
The differing of opinions and the freedom to express such differing opinions is part of the core of American democracy.
2006-10-24 08:40:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tara P 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
You are confusing the Democrats with Republicans again. Let's take the latest Foley gafe as an example. This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
-- Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
-- Priests: No gays!
-- Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
-- Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
-- White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
-- Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
Democrats pick and choose who are allowed to be gay. Need another example... Black conservatives/Republicans are villanous traitors, Uncle Toms, sellouts, tokens, and more offensive slurs that I don't care to repeat.
2006-10-24 08:20:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Republican Mom 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
properly Limbaugh delivered the neo-cons to a sparkling aspect, then for sure got here Fox.. Limbaugh says each and every of the propose neo-con stuff, so maximum neocons will trust him. As for the loose speech aspect, Limbaugh can say regardless of he needs; so can Coulter. And, hell, i'm for the legalization of drugs, so Rus may have his unlawful drug habit (the neocons elect to shop drugs unlawful, no longer the dems.. marijuana?
2016-10-16 06:15:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are a lot more tolerant of you than you are of us and that is for sure. After a life time......I am 65........of being called bigoted, mean spirited, dumb, homophobe and various other derogatory epithats a cynical outlook toward the left wing wild eyed liberal name callers comes rather easily.
I frankly am weary of the abuse and ridicule that I and my familly have to endure because of our legitimate core family values. And I will not endure the name calling outlined above any longer without response. I have found that when you guys are called out and find you have an intelligent skillful debater looking you straight......pun intended........in the eye you almost always tuck your tail and run because you folks can not stand the light of honest debate.
2006-10-24 08:19:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by barrettins 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
You'll find that it isn't the "neo-cons" that stiffle debate. Being on the conservitive side, I see libs debate by throwing hate speach with no point. When you actually compare words...then come back with your appology. Until then, you should open your mind.
2006-10-24 08:16:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by majlumbo 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Here we go again. You're asking a question about:
The prefix neo- refers to two ways in which neoconservatism was new. First, many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism. Also, neoconservatism was a comparatively recent strain of conservative socio-political thought. It derived from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II, including literary criticism and the social sciences.
Who do you know who swtiched from Democrat to Republican? I didn't think so. Shut Up!
2006-10-24 08:12:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
You do hate America. You have nothing positive to say about our Commander in Chief, or anything he does.
2006-10-24 09:10:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Skidude 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Being a Conservative means that you would like things to stay as they are. Thinking is a strenuous business and so it's much easier to keep thing as they are.
2006-10-24 08:14:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
You're flat out nasty. Your question is there to bring indifference to you. You're calling people names - you come on here blaming everyone for everyone else's problems because you believe everything negative about America.
2006-10-24 08:17:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by RAR24 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Learn what a neocon is. It is on this website.
2006-10-24 09:21:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
1⤋