They are always quick to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with their overly politically correct opinions as a racist or bigot, even when the issue at hand has nothing to do with race. Liberals seem to confuse tolerance with not enforcing any laws or having no moral absolutes, hence their support for things like illegal immigration or legalizing drugs and other harmful behaviours. Enforcing a moral standard is not being intolerant. If we simply allowed people to do whatever they wanted, it would lead to a very chaotic society. Liberals must be trying to hide or compensate for something, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to convince others how "tolerant" they are with race-based policies, while dismissing other people as racists. Maybe that's why everyone forgets that the democrats were the party of slavery and confederacy. And I'm not saying this because I support conservatives. I'm just against liberals.
2007-03-21 10:57:01 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Republican Rhetoric.
2007-03-21 10:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
A free society is a chaotic society. You can not be a true democracy without accepting the fact that there will be chaos from time to time. Whether you like it or not, enforcing a moral standard is patently undemocratic.
I have come to the conclusion that we aren't truly free in this country and anyone who really looks at the issue with an open mind should come to a similar conclusion. The problem is that we (IE Americans in general) talk a big game about freedom and democracy when neither political party offers anything close to true pure democratic freedom.
In addition, you are failing to see that slavery and the confederacy were CONSERVATIVE issues. So the distinction is not in which party supported it, but in which ideology supported it. Hard core conservatives bolted the Democratic party during the debate over civil rights and became Republicans. Thats why today's Democrats are not held accountable....because it was a different incarnation of the party.
2007-03-21 18:06:24 · answer #2 · answered by Jerry J 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why is that many conservatives care more about making themselves look self-enlightened than solving anything?
They are always quick to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with their overly politically correct opinions as a traitor, or not a patriot even when the issues at hand has nothing to do with a person's patriotism. Conservatives seem to confuse patriotism with loyalty to the country or freedom. They seem to be so narrowly focused that they see the world as black and white, my way or the highway. They don't seem to understand that to challenge those in high office is what democracy is all about. Not to challange leaders is fodder for totalitarian government. Conservatives must be trying to hide or compensate for something, otherwise they wouldn't be trying so hard to convince others of how patriotic they are while dismissing other people as somehow giving aid and comfort to the enemy and not supporting our troops. Maybe that's why everyone forgets that the Republicans were voted out of Congress in the last election. Racism has no place in America today. It is a sensitive issue and it is quite obvious when someone's bias is against another's race or religion. We are supposed to be a more civilized and tolerant society than ever before but with conservatives and some of their opinions as expressed one can but wonder if we aren't going backward as a civilization rather than forward. These are some observations I have made in looking at both conservative and liberals. Since you have taken one side I took the other. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
2007-03-21 18:13:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dear Romare thanks for the great story!
And to the question asker, this trend you notice and view as "making themselves look self-enlightened" could also be called the pursuit of knowledge or the pursuit of enlightenment.
To some people (typically liberally slanted) this is their primary motivation for waking up in the morning. All other pursuits all paltry and ultimately inconsequential.
Regarding the civil war reference.
Please go to the library and try your hand at some more advanced history books. The civil war was a much more complex engagement than a fight over slavery. Additionally although Lincoln eventually supported abolotion it was never an established tenet of either party except the most radical left-wingers of the time. The civil war had huge international banking overtones and reprecusssions. And although the practice of human trafficking was abolished, non-white male citizens found no new new rights for many years after.
If you read the documented party philosophies it is well recorded that the democratic party inarguably championed both women's suffrage and the civil rights movement - grudgingly yes, but all the same. Coincedentally the civil rights movement was the same period that Demos lost the South.
And if it feels like I am quickly dismissing you well I apologize. The most profound statement in your question(?) was this:
Enforcing a moral standard is not being intolerant.
Beyond your historical reference - this is another point we disagree on. Enforcing a moral standard with the threat of imprisonment is a medevil practice.
The act of caging a human being at threat of gun point is very severe and should be reserved for crimes of like severity.
When used to enforce "crimes" against society you make a mockery of liberty and create a paradox within the justice system. The conservative party used to champion Habeus Corpus - now they are all mixed up with Religous fundamentalist philosophy and believe they can define the confines of planet for all people with the confidence of a holyman.
Also you say in this question(?) that you are against liberals.
I wonder if this means you against the people who express themselves as liberal or against the concepts within the platform itself....? If you are just against the people for some reason - well we love you anyway...
2007-03-21 18:46:47 · answer #4 · answered by Nicholas J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the Liberals want to be pro illegal immigration. This would be so cool to open the borders and get rid of security completely. Everybody could go where ever they want. All terrorists are welcome in America too with their rules. While they are at it they should get rid of most of the laws too. Want to relieve ones self in public, no problem now. Except the taxation rate should be 65% minimum, but you'll get free housing even if you don't work. HAHA. Soon the US would be like China and India where no one follows traffic rules , and honks for no reason. Where most people ride around in buggies and drive in the middle of the lane. Oh, don't forget the cows on the streets which would be awesome and also you will be able to see feces dumps all over the city. This is what pro illegal immigrants support as this stuff exists in foreign countries. Don't believe me, buy a ticket to Bombay, India and explore the city, hehe. I'd wear an air filter over your mouth nose or expect to wipe black smut from your nose later. Of course it gets too bad, anybody who chooses can leave america and go to any other english speaking terriroty they can get a visa too. Or just skip the visa and become an illegal alien oneself. There is australia, new zealand, england, irleland, canada or just learn another language in a week like "brain man". You could probably work some jobs in Europe too as I met plenty of people there who knew perfect english like in the netherlands. Though being bilingual in those countries become a necessity.
2007-03-22 19:49:40 · answer #5 · answered by Andrew P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually liberals solved the conservative caused Great Depression. We solved the injustice of segregation with the Civil Rights Act of the 60s, right about the time the Dixiecrats became Republicans. Now we're solving the effects of pollution on global climate and our health with personal responsibility. Bush and big business want to let the illegals come and work for substandard wages. Not many people want to legalize drugs. However, treatment is a far less expensive and more permanent solution than jail.
2007-03-21 18:19:10 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well I am a liberal and I don't want to legalize drugs or allow illegal immigration. However, I believe in civil liberties for all people. And yes... when you tell people you have these rights but you tell other people that they don't because they are different.. then you are discriminating and that is wrong. So, by helping people become enlightened we are solving problems.
2007-03-21 18:02:27 · answer #7 · answered by a 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
why is it that there are so many unimaginitive people using Yahoo answers to broadcast their tiresome opinions in the form of a question that says "Why is it that libs (eat babies or some other endless drivel about conspiracy theories and UFOs that the poster heard on Fox News)?
2007-03-21 19:26:38 · answer #8 · answered by njyogibear 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where do I start with you zombie's?
It's not about liberal and conservative, dude... it's about good and evil.
I am not a "liberal" and I am not a "Conservative", but I am very liberal when a freind of mine is in need and I am very conservative when I have to save for my kids' college tuition.
You need to know the truth... Seriously.
This FREE VIDEO on GOOGLE is what you need to watch...
"Freedom to Fascism"
IT is NOT party bias, just watch it and tell me what you think, feel free to e-mail me after you watch it.
2007-03-21 18:08:43 · answer #9 · answered by Christian Paragon 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're an idiot, and some other idiot might mistake your blather for a good point. Is that a good reason to shut you up, or should we respect your freedom of speech?
2007-03-21 18:10:08 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
2007-03-21 18:03:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋