Except it isn't 'a group'.

There are lots of ways of being a muslim. There are lots of ways to enact sharia.

But if the politicians are to be believed then there's just the desert-dwellers and the woman-stoners to choose from.

well the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Marvin Gardens...

Perhaps that's your problem. you have me confused with someone on the right.

You posted:
You are the one who posted this in a thread - What does being a "Liberal" mean?" Not what a liberal is not.

To me it was a cheap shot at a perspective you disagree with. Thats fine and dandy, just admit it. That is all I am saying.

fixed:shotgun:

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. = PNAC so we may want to center the discussion on somebody credible...

That said, I'm not too big on misogynistic insular communities whether they vote Republican or not.

Takes one to know one.

Which, of course, I'm not, as I've stated I am relating my personal experiences.
That sounds like a good idea. I would be very interested to see what you think that might look like.

I get what you're saying, but the Republican party and by extension, conservatives in the US (as opposed to libertarians) is defined to a large extent by the religious social conservatives who IMO, include a vocal anti-Muslim voice, along with intolerance of gay rights, women's reproductive rights, etc.

And I am saying that you are the most defensive and patronizing person I have encountered here with your "now now" and other childish shots.

I apologized to you once for your overreaction to a post of mine in another discussion when I didnt feel it was necessary.

Dana had to placate your defensive overly sensitive reaction to her first response to your anti-Muslim joke in the tasteless jokes thread.

And again, I had to respond to your defensiveness earlier in this discussion when I clearly was referring to an article about fear mongering.

You wont get another apology from me. Grow up.

Dana? really? You are gonna drag her into this? She's further left than you.

Didn't ask for you to apologize - just to admit the truth. Why is that so hard.

I dont think I ever said you were an extremist. In fact, I said we had an interesting discussion at one time just as I have with Lookout.

Defining liberalism by the broader consensus (and comparing it to consensus conservatism as I see it), I mean:

* supporting individual rights of minorities and women rather than denying their rights through constitutional amendments.

* supporting strong environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer regulations as opposed to weak (or cosmetic) regulations and a reliance on voluntary industry compliance.

* supporting short term social safety net programs and not treating those who need temporary assistance as though they are responsible for that need; it could happen to any of us.

I could go on.

What I find humorous is the characterization by many conservatives of Obama as a left wing radical, bordering on socialism, when he is more of a centrist/moderate consensus liberal in many respects than Clinton was.

My misunderstanding, I had thought you were replying directly to me.

Interesting observation, each one of your items in the vanilla description of what it means to be a Liberal is stated in the terms of how Liberals differ from Conservatives some "other" position. I wonder if its even possible, these days, to describe a position without employing this device. I've been remarking for years that people vote "against" rather than "for" candidates. Similar thing here? Thoughts?

The comparisons weren't necessary but I thought brought an added perspective.

Just as I think it is more interesting for discussion purposes to define consensus liberalism and conservatives in how they are reflected in real programs and real policies as opposed to a more academic description.

IMO, consensus liberalism in those terms is not as extreme as consensus conservatism in current American politics

Using the examples from above and current public policy issues:

Consensus liberals dont want to force people to accept gay marriages in their churches, they just want gay couples to have equal marital rights under law. Or to promote abortions or force people to accept abortions, but simply to allow a woman's right to choose. The other side is much more extreme with policy positions to amend the Constitution to deny these rights.

Consensus liberals dont want strong environmental regulations because they are tree huggers or want to protect some endangered species no one every heard of, but because clean air and clean water is beneficial to the quality of life or our species. As opposed to trusting industry to voluntarily meet comparable guidelines.

Consensus liberals want more investment in clean energy, not to save the world from global warming, but because it makes both economic and environmental sense as opposed to "drill baby drill" and $billions in subsidies and tax breaks for five big oil companies making $hundreds of billions in profit.

Consensus liberals recognize the need to compromise on government spending but think a small tax increase on the top bracket should be part of the solution to reducing the debt as opposed to the consensus conservative position that tax increases on the top bracket is non-negotiable.

The Affordable Care Act with its public/private partnership is consensus liberalism as opposed to a more extreme government single payer system, yet the ACA is demonized by conservatives as socialism and government takeover of health care.

You may not agree, but I think current policies and programs of the two major parties defined by their liberal and conservative members reflect the above.

added:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extreme conservatism, 5 being moderate and 10 being extreme liberalism, I would put consensus conservatism in current American politics at a 2 and consensus liberalism at a 7. That is, consensus liberalism is closer to the center, if only marginally and consensus conservatism more extreme.

Hmmm...

Interesting that you state your points and they seem to make sense. Lookout states his points and they also seem to make sense.

I want to put your two summaries in a spreadsheet and determine if you actually disagree about anything, or are touching on completely different "hot spot" issues.

This reminds me of how my wife tells me that such-and-such a person "agrees with her" on a particular issue. My response is, of course they agree with her--she has certainly told them things that are almost impossible to disagree with! But, does that relate to reality? No, it doesn't. That is just being a clever, persuasive speaker.

The ideas/ideals are hard to argue. The conflict comes when you try to figure out how to achieve that particular goal, especially when you consider the unintended consequences.