Why is it, whenever liberals don't agree with conservatives, the cons calls the lib anti-american?

Question

Why the name calling? What's so un-american about disagreeing with someone else's views?

Answer 1

It comes directly from Bush saying long ago "If you aren't with us, you're against us." Never mind he wasn't talking about Democrats, it sounded good and they ran with it. And their pundits, from whom they get their talking points, are happy to keep up the low brow assault. They've used the tactic of painting everyone who doesn't agree with them as cowards, or socialists, or commies, or tree huggers, or unAmerican, or terrorist lovers, or Godless for so long that they've actually started to believe their own propaganda. They couldn't care less that they demonize their fellow Americans. All that counts is that they stick with the party line and character assassinate until it doesn't work anymore. They're about to hit that wall when the election gets here in '08. Most Americans are sick to death of their partisan bleating and demonizing of Americans who don't like this war. That would be 70% of us. Can you say "tactical error?"

Answer 2

happy to make certain a conservative who would not help the blind anti intelectual hate against liberals and different political fighters. regrettably you're very plenty the minority and incredibly on Yahoo. the project with conservatives isn't the prevalent conservatives themselves; this is the persons they hear to. Conservative leaders, of their vilification of liberals, tell quite some lies approximately what liberals are meant to have self belief, help, say, do, etc., that the prevalent conservatives finally end up hating a fictional enemy. If what the pundits pronounced approximately liberals became into actual, i could be a hardcore conservative. If liberals have been so undesirable, those pundits and politicians could haven't any reason to lie in any respect. they might purely recite data and enable them to stand for themselves. rather they take part in character assassination and circumvent speaking approximately easily subject concerns. They make blanket statements that haven't any foundation in actuality. what's worse is that lots of them cloak their rhetoric in a pseudo-Christian guise to act as though God is by some potential on their factor (even even with the undeniable fact that the Bible relatively tells them to wish quietly and stay out of politics). surprisingly much all the lies that are instructed approximately liberals are easily shattered with the barest attempt at rationality and reason. The data stand for themselves, yet plenty airborne dirt and dirt is slung that the data are like gemstones buried under various ft of airborne dirt and dirt. The data are there, and are glaring and sparkling, yet regrettably one would desire to dig by all of the crap this is spewed with the intention to hold them to gentle. whilst one digs a handful of it away, the pundits are professional at piling on much greater crap, or greater often, will distract and divert remote from the digging.

Answer 3

It's the old strategy of "If you aren't with us, you're against us."

You can thank our current president for using those exact words in his first post-9/11 speech. Since then, the President, and those who feel they have to defend his opinions, have used divisive tactics like this: "What? You oppose the war? That's unAmerican! You must be a liberal!" Notice that this now implies that ALL liberals don't just oppose the war, but are also unAmerican. It also starts to imply that "liberals" are some sort of dehumanized enemy - much as how politicians used the word "communist" during the 50s and 60s.

Never mind the fact that this country was FOUNDED by people who had their own opinions, and wanted to live in a country that allowed them to express themselves without government persecution! Seriously, you could argue that NOT opposing the government is more "unAmerican" than what most politician idiots do - just sit there and nod their heads for fear of being branded "unAmerican" by their equally weakminded peers.

Answer 4

They have been doing that since the beginning of time! Nothing new here! They call names because they are at the lowest possible level for humans and they aren't intelligent enough to not call someone names or label them in some way!

Answer 5

Because cons feel their view is synanomous with being American. It's all a matter of philosophy.

A good example is flag burning. I think being able to burn it is a striking example of democracy in practice. It is a great cornerstone of American ideal and philosophy. My dad thinks it a horrible atrocity and that burning it is destroying that American ideal. While both views exists they are just different takes. I feel the principle of be able to burn it reflects true notion of freedom - meaning that America allows those who disagree with it to be a part of it. To me that is a powerful evolution in thought, especially compared to most countries. To him, I feel his view is more iconic. The symbolism is his issue and the burning of is destroying that philosophy. Both are valid and both are why we generally boil down to two different parties in this great country. I think he is conservative and old fashion so he is not cotching the "higher" principle in being free to burn it but that is why they are the Republican party. Soem people don't have the cognitive skills to recognize the higher ideal. But granted, things do get tricky when you enter the gray zone. That gray zone is why libs are called progressive. Staying the same with old fshion ideals is why they are conservative. I say try new progress ideas to see if they work; they may not but at least we will know and be able to understand why they failed. This too is what it means to be America. We always set forth new ideals.

Also, the reality is that America is basically two countries in one. We were fortunate that our founding fathers, excellent lawyers, left things so open to interpretation that we can both co-exist under one constitution. It's like the best, arbitrated legal agreement ever written.

I do feel conservatism = no progress= bc of ignorance = lack of unerstanding higher ideals. But only when it doesn't apply to free markets! Hypocrites.

Answer 6

There is a difference between a democratic America and the neocon ideal of America. It is all about money. Americans have it and Republicans want it. Democrats try to keep the money in the hands of Americans. Republicans try to get the money into their own hands. Would you lie about Democrats if it meant that you might have a few million more dollars in your pocket? What if you were dishonest, immoral, Godless, and belonged to a corrupt political party? Would you then?

There is a lot of temptation to be a Republican.

Answer 7

Anyone who calls someone anti-american for expressing a dissenting view is anti-american themselves. Whether they are liberal or conservative makes little difference...

Answer 8

There's nothing at all un-American about it. If anything, dissent is what makes for healthy democracies.

Answer 9

Because they are taught from a young age to follow blindly and do as they are told. Poor mindless bastards. Can't think for themselves and those that do are constantly berated and put down for exercising their right to free speech. Pathetic.

Answer 10

The only time I will call a lib "anti-American" is when they promote socialist ideas that would destroy the thread and craft of our Constitution, or when they say and do things that are antagonisic to the military (i.e. - proposed cuts in funding to the Dept. of Defense during war, John Kerry calling our Marines "murderers," etc.) I don't even get so mad when people say "oh, well, we didn't need to go to Iraq, what did Saddam ever do to hurt us?" Although I strongly disagree with that statement, I wouldn't call it anti-American, but when you start blatantly disrespecting the job our military is trying to do, then that's anti-American.

A lot of far left loonies don't understand the importance of maintaining our national security.