What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[footfootfoot]

Oh it pretty much means the same thing here (or did when I was growing up) it's just that those values are heinous and unethical (as taught by our corporately funded popular culture propaganda machine.)

[Uday]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Oh it pretty much means the same thing here (or did when I was growing up) it's just that those values are heinous and unethical (as taught by our corporately funded popular culture propaganda machine.)

Yes, I am very puzzled by this "tea party". It is fascinating to watch people form crowds to yell for what's directly against their own best interests.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uday

It is fascinating to watch people form crowds to yell for what's directly against their own best interests.

The tea party wants to cut X, Y, & Z. But when you ask them how much of Y should we cut, these same tea partiers say that don't want to cut Y. They just want to cut spending. But have no idea what really must be cut.

Simplest and most obvious cut: eliminate the paper dollar bill. That would save $1billion annually. But their political extremist handlers did not discuss that. So they have no idea that paper $1 bills should be or could be eliminated. They only know what their handlers (ie Limbaugh) have told them to believe. Including "we want Obama to fail".

When the tea party had their first 'convention', who were the most popular in polls? Gingrich? Bush? Palin? Cheney? Paul? Nope. Beck and Limbaugh scored the highest popularity numbers. After all, those who tell them how to think will always be most popular.

[Fair&Balanced]

I can tell you what a liberal is not.

And that is someone who wants to amend the Constitution to take away rights or deny rights to citizens, as is currently high on the list of priorities for many conservatives and something that has only been done once in 200+ years (prohibition).

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I shalt not covet my neighbour's pussy.

Yes you shall! I mean if she is hot....

[footfootfoot]

I think we need to define the terms "neighbor" and "pussy" for starters [/bill clinton]

[Fair&Balanced]

More on what a liberal is not.

A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.

As potential GOP candidates jockey to distinguish themselves heading into primary season, there seems to be at least one issue on which they widely agree: Sharia law is a continuing threat to the United States.

Invoking Sharia and casting it as a growing danger at odds with American principles has become a rallying cry for conservatives. It’s also quickly becoming an unlikely pet issue among 2012 presidential contenders: Potential candidates have almost unilaterally assailed the Islamic code, making it as much a staple of the campaign stump speech as economic reform, job creation and rising gas prices.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54605.html

Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.

[classicman]

found this online...

“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.


“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed: The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections. Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases. Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s . The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study--

cannot link though -

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

found this online...


cannot link though -

Frank Gafney is one of those conservatives who claim the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood

And, as in the case above, never provides documentation --> fear mongering.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

never provides documentation --> fear mongering.

I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...

It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?

French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...

It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.

Directed at Gaffney, who also suggests that the Obama administration manipulated the redesign of the Missile Defense Agency to look like his campaign logo and then that the new logo incorporates the Islamic crescent as well.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above). As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo. (For a comparison, the previous logo is below.)

http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/20...es-a-crescent/

The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.

[classicman]

I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.

[Fair&Balanced]

I dont think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.

So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.

I am much concernced about the intolerance of Republican presidential candiates, some conservative talking heads and pseudo-media types who spread misinformation and fear based on inuendo and dubious if not downright ludicrious accusations that unfortunately some people believe.