Liberals and conservatives; enemies or adversaries? What do you think?

Question

Linguists have noted that when we talk about whole groups of people (liberals or conservatives) as if they are enemies whose views or selves need to be destroyed, we are talking in 'authoritarian' language, not democratic?

If we talk about people as though they have the right to have differences, we are speaking democratic language. Democratic thinking is to argue about values but to realize that other people's views are legitimate and must be tolerated in order to maintain a democracy.

Answer 1

I think you made some good points.

Answer 2

This is why I choose to be liberal. There is a hate coming from the Liberal direction and there is an radical element inside of what we would call the Liberals,. I am against them, but they do not have access to media ownership and they certainly do not represent the central views of the Democrats or all Liberals in general.

The biggest threat we face is from the richest among us who are intolerant of others and use their wealth and power to control the everyone else. They have the money to get elected even though their agenda will damage the country. A decent person of modest means does not have a chance to win a seat of power in this country. If we allow them to, they will take away our freedoms and use us to fight their economic wars...

There are good people in every aspect of humanity, but everyone is less than perfect and will justify their immoral actions somehow. So we must fight the power so that any one group does not get the power of life and death over us. We cannot trust them to be generous, moral, or kind. We must strive to reduce their power always, because they are always striving to obtain it all. Right now the extreme Conservative faction has attained a great degee of power compared to history...They own the Supreme court, have just come off a 12 year domination of Congress, and they will have held the presidency for 20 of the last 28 years. They have moved our system of government to the Right and to represent their ideology. The US system of government should be a mixture of ideolgies

Answer 3

In that case, most of the posts on here are between enemies.

However, there seems to be more posts coming from the right than the left. Perhaps the so-called conservatives on this board are quicker to acquire enemies than the liberals. That would fit the stereotypes at least. You know, the war-mongering Nazi Fascist right vs. the cowardly weak Marxist Socialist left.

I guess it all comes down to mindset. If your opinions are correct no matter what anyone else says, then naturally you will see enemies all around you. However, if you are willing to listen to other's opinions even if they differ from your own then you will see adversaries.

I suppose that would explain a lot on here.

~X~

Answer 4

They're all Politicians. For the last 40 of my 60 years on this planet, I've watched this Country go to Hell because of greed and "Pork Barrel" politics. They are so busy making deals and feathering their nests that they have lost sight of our problems. Partisan politics are destroying our Country because they accomplish nothing. We cannot tolerate this, because in today's violent world where just about anybody can create a Weapon of Mass Destruction, we're sitting Ducks on a real "Powder Keg". We must tell our Congressmen and Senators that if they do not perform, they will get no vote. Otherwise we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

There is a total failure of many Americans, including many of the leading Democrats in Congress, and some Republicans, to fully appreciate the persistent, long-term threat posed to America's liberties and survival, and to the future of Democracies everywhere. WE ARE IN A WORLD WAR with The Islamic Resistance Movement that envisions a world dominated and defined by an Islamic Caliphate of religious totalitarianism. They want us DEAD and they are ready and willing to fight any war, make any sacrifice, suffer any hardship, and pay any price to achieve that goal. THEY MUST BE STOPPED AND STOPPED QUICKLY! If not, it just may prove to be the kind of blunder upon which the fate of America, and the free world turns, and falls.

Answer 5

happy to be certain a conservative who would not help the blind anti intelectual hate adversarial to liberals and different political combatants. regrettably you're very a lot the minority and genuinely on Yahoo. the area with conservatives isn't the favourite conservatives themselves; it truly is the folk they pay interest to. Conservative leaders, of their vilification of liberals, tell such an outstanding variety of lies about what liberals are meant to trust, help, say, do, etc., that the favourite conservatives finally end up hating a fictional enemy. If what the pundits said about liberals grow to be genuine, i might want to be a hardcore conservative. If liberals were so undesirable, those pundits and politicians might want to don't have any reason to lie in any respect. they could in basic terms recite information and enable them stand for themselves. instead they participate in personality assassination and avert conversing about genuinely subject matters. They make blanket statements that don't have any foundation in truth. what's worse is that lots of them cloak their rhetoric in a pseudo-Christian guise to act as if God is finally on their area (even in spite of the truth that the Bible in truth tells them to desire quietly and stay out of politics). just about each and each of the lies that are advised about liberals are genuinely shattered with the barest attempt at rationality and reason. The information stand for themselves, yet a lot dirt is slung that the information are like gemstones buried less than quite a few ft of dirt. The information are there, and are glaring and sparkling, yet regrettably one might want to dig with the help of each and each of the crap it quite is spewed with a view to deliver them to mild. at the same time as one digs a handful of it away, the pundits are specialist at piling on even extra crap, or extra commonly, will distract and divert faraway from the digging.

Answer 6

Liberals and Conservatives are called such due to their beliefs, positions on issues, proposed solutions, etc. Those who do not hold beliefs that are consistant with the Liberal or Conservative philosophies are not (or should be not) labeled as such.

Usually terms like "independent", "middle-of-the-road" are usually assigned to those who have beliefs that fall into both catagories.

People do have the right to their opinions, positions, beliefs and values. If they differ from someone else's, that does NOT necessarily make the adversaries. Live and let live.

It is when one's values or beliefs are IMPOSED (or attempted to be) on another that the relationship becomes confrontational.

And ALL views are NOT legitimate. Just because Cho's values are different that mine, I DO NOT HAVE TO LEGITIMIZE THEM!


and, BRAVO "ShootingStar"!

.

Answer 7

Very true. This is why the country is such a mess. Ronald Reagan is blamed for this to some degree but he shouldn't be. He was actually very respectful of those who didn't agree with him. On Capitol Hill the reason why they are so intolerant of each other now goes back to Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Republican Revolution." Prior to 1994, new members of Congress, regardless of party, would go through a week-long orientation process to get familiar with Washington, the Capitol, their own staffs, etc, and to get to know each other. Newt put an end to that. Starting in 1994 he only let Republicans go through orientation and made the Dems fend for themselves. He also told Republicans that they were to keep interaction with Dems to an absolute minimum. This of course, is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Founding Fathers wanted and is the reason Newt Gingrich is the LAST person we want in public office. The man is absolute scum.

Fortunately, one of the first things Pelosi did when she became speaker was to end this separation.

Answer 8

Your question is probably one of the sanest I've seen in my short 3 1/2 months on this board. Thank you for your display of reason and intelligence.

Answer 9

Just people with different opinions , That's all. Nobody from either group should hate anyone from the other group.

Answer 10

"Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."—Madeline Albright, 1998.

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."—Bill Clinton in 1998.


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."—Tom Daschle in 1998.


"Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
\
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.

Answer 11

I take all opinions and beliefs into consideration. Unless the person is name-calling, bashing, or being downright hateful. That behavior makes their credibility zero with me. Oh, and if they are trying to make their opinions mine.