Sentences with phrase «what liberals and conservatives»

The measure represents a major shift from the tough - on - crime bills of the last two decades that filled prisons and created what both liberals and conservatives now believe has been a subclass of lifers in jail and a waste of tax money.

That is what both liberals and conservatives forget.

Not exact matches

Conservative pundits steeped in what George H. W. Bush, running against Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, famously called «voodoo economics,» have retorted that Buffett and his limousine - liberal ilk should instead voluntarily pay more to the federal treasury, pointing out the existence of such a provision in the tax code.

And so, what was tapped into and what we see is there's a large percentage of the population who is hurting, and that there is a conflict between the «haves» and the «have nots,» and liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thAnd so, what was tapped into and what we see is there's a large percentage of the population who is hurting, and that there is a conflict between the «haves» and the «have nots,» and liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thand what we see is there's a large percentage of the population who is hurting, and that there is a conflict between the «haves» and the «have nots,» and liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thand that there is a conflict between the «haves» and the «have nots,» and liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thand the «have nots,» and liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thand liberal ideas and conservative ideas, and all of thand conservative ideas, and all of thand all of that.

A study published in the journal Science and written by three members of the Facebook data science team found that the News Feed algorithm suppresses what they called «diverse content» by 8 percent for self - identified liberals and 5 percent for self - identified conservatives.

One of the missing facts in Darcy's report is that while conservatives with big microphones taught their listeners not to believe what is reported in the mainstream media (and especially the elite press in New York and Washington) they themselves still relied on those sources as their baseline reality — minus the liberal «spin,» of course.

Based on what Environment Minister Peter Kent recently told CBC's Evan Solomon, the Tories no longer oppose only the broadest form of carbon tax (as proposed Stéphane Dion is his disastrous 2008 election run as Liberal leader), but also the cap - and - trade option, which use to be in the Conservative platform (it's on page 32 here).

Less information is now provided to the public in budgets than under previous Liberal and Conservative governments; the authority of Parliament over government spending has been weakened; the understanding of Canadians as to what the government is actually planning to do in the budget has been eroded.

What is striking about this clash of business models is that it did not exist in pre Liberal and Conservative governments.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R - La., asked Zuckerberg about a report that found that a new algorithm Facebook uses to determine what appears in users» newsfeeds had a «tremendous bias against conservative news and content, and a favorable bias toward liberal content.»

Anyway, it'll be on policy choices that the Trudeau Government stands or falls with Canadian voters, regardless of the effort of the Conservatives to make couture an issue, and while there's plenty to criticize in the Liberal policy book, taken as a package Canadians don't yet seem that dissatisfied with what they're getting.

What if the Progressive Conservatives win the upcoming election in Ontario (or the one after that) and ultimately keep their campaign promise to repeal the provincial Liberals» cap - and - trade regime and reject a pan-Canadian carbon price?

If you ask them, I'm pretty sure that most liberal mainstream journalists are against punching conservatives who are peacefully exercising their rights to free speech - and they will probably mean what they say.

(And since we are entering an era in which conservatives may be forced into considering, at all levels of government, the use of more dramatically intransigent constitutional resistance options to various budget - destroying, Constitution - eroding, and religious - liberty threatening trends of liberal «governance,» a Lincoln - like precision about what we intend to do, and about what enormities we are constitutionally obliged to put up with, is all the more necessaAnd since we are entering an era in which conservatives may be forced into considering, at all levels of government, the use of more dramatically intransigent constitutional resistance options to various budget - destroying, Constitution - eroding, and religious - liberty threatening trends of liberal «governance,» a Lincoln - like precision about what we intend to do, and about what enormities we are constitutionally obliged to put up with, is all the more necessaand religious - liberty threatening trends of liberal «governance,» a Lincoln - like precision about what we intend to do, and about what enormities we are constitutionally obliged to put up with, is all the more necessaand about what enormities we are constitutionally obliged to put up with, is all the more necessary.

But liberal versions of Christianity, which can be both theologically and politically conservative, assume that what it means to be Christian qua Christian is to have no enemies peculiar to being Christian.

From what we know today he was probably an unshaven long haired homeless black Jew who even today would likekly be considered a nuisance by the establishment, especially the Christian right wing conservatives and Tea Partyists would probably condemn him to being a Socialist Liberal or something they all revile.

I've not even responded to your posts until you tried to link me to another poster, which is rather conservative from what I can see, and in case you hadn't noticed, I'm a liberal.

Ironically I went from what what most people would consider to be an extremely liberal and open minded church to a (somewhat) more conservative church, and find it more open to honest self examination.

For our efforts to go beyond such survival - mode, and to actually do what conservative pundits are calling for, depend a great upon a broader reform movement to restore genuine liberal education to the general curriculum and to give its champions real power.

My question is this: what would it take for the American church at large (American church in this case meaning mainline denominations, other individual sects like the Mennonites with their huge variety of conservative to liberal congregations, nondenominational churches of all sizes mega and not, etc.) to make a concerted effort to call out abuse demonstrated by clergy in both church, public, and private settings?

How much of what happened is parallel to the modernist split between liberal and conservative that occurred from about 1880 - 1920?

Both of the major camps of social conservative reaction to the challenges of the last few years are right in part: We have always had to struggle against the inclination of our liberal society to furiously pound itself into what Edmund Burke called «the dust and powder of individuality,» and to resist its elevation of choice above commitment.

To locate all beliefs on a single line between liberal and conservative poles is to succumb to a conceptual convenience that limits and flattens what people actually say they perceive and overlooks the larger symbolic struggle in which all people participate.

I know lots of Muslims, lots of Jews, lots of Christians, tons of Hindus, and some are kind, some are mean, some like animals, some like sports, some are liberals, some are conservatives, some like to swim, but it has nothing to do with what religion they are.

Sane people can disagree about whether there ought to be a right to privacy, i.e., about whether it is logically a natural right and if so perhaps ought to be put into the Constitution via amendment, or about whether we (usually at state - level) should pass particular laws, such as ones that legalize gay - marriage, that factually expand what might be called privacy, but no sane U.S. Citizen, gay, straight, liberal, or conservative, should be left ignorant about the Constitution - wounding judicial usurpations done in the name of this right, more of which are planned to be done soon enough.

Liberal commentators, both religious and secular, have cheered what they take as the recent comeuppance Catholic and other religious conservatives received in the sections of Evangelii Gaudium, the Pope's recent apostolic exhortation, that touch on market economics.

So, the real question for conservatives (like me) and liberals is what do we deliver and how do we deliver it in terms of welfare services.

We all — liberals and conservatives — want the end result to be that no one suffers and everyone has access to what they need to be healthy.

Both old - line liberals and conservatives will object strongly to many of Patterson's claims, and few who are seriously interested in the problems he confronts will be entirely comfortable with what he says.

What we have in evangelical social ethics is a rough analogue of the ideological differences between Ronald Reagan (conservative), Richard Nixon (moderate), Pat Brown (liberal / reformist), and Jerry Brown (radical).

What if liberals and conservatives in the church, for all their disagreement, would together put their energies to upholding the main truth against the main threat?

The outrage in Arizona has sparked another cycle of mutual recriminations between liberals and conservatives that points up what seems to be a growing chasm running through our political culture.

And then he does what all conservatives do, state facts that are unreferenced and unverifiable by talking about supposed studies showing that conservatives give more to charity than liberals anyway, thereby elevating themselves even more above the rest of us in their delusional hierarcAnd then he does what all conservatives do, state facts that are unreferenced and unverifiable by talking about supposed studies showing that conservatives give more to charity than liberals anyway, thereby elevating themselves even more above the rest of us in their delusional hierarcand unverifiable by talking about supposed studies showing that conservatives give more to charity than liberals anyway, thereby elevating themselves even more above the rest of us in their delusional hierarchy.

We can not have a just society made up only of what conservatives call «fuzzyminded liberals with bleeding hearts,» who express compassion only for the criminal and forget the victim.

Religious and social conservatives, and even traditional liberals, may well have disagreed over the years about what constitutes modesty (Speedos or shorts?

Though the New Deal was itself certainly of major importance to the political formation of what has come to be known as the organized Jewish community, for many if not most Jews Roosevelt's greatness lay not so much in the fact that he was a liberal in opposition to conservatives as it did in the fact that in the face of Nazi Germany he was an interventionist in firm and successful opposition to the isolationists.

I asked on my Facebook page if you ever feel caught between «liberal» and «conservative» Christianity, and here's what some of you said:

Kekes concludes Against Liberalism with a suggestion that what is worthwhile in liberalism might best be preserved by a conservative pluralism, one that recognized the incompatibility of human ends, the necessity of difficult trade - offs, and the existence of certain goods - among them, security, civility, and peace - not given much time of day by contemporary liberals.

This reflects an internal story of conflict between liberal and conservative perspectives on what it means to be a Catholic.

The divides generally follow; the lines of what are described as liberal and conservative dispositions.

Moreover, religious conservatives and liberals have insurmountable disagreements as to what any such consensus might look like.

By seeing this rub for what it is, a permanent problem for a nation which would live under its own laws (not to speak of the laws of nature's God), we are all made into conservatives — and liberals.

A person who defies all of the liberal stereotypes of what a conservative and a Mormon are like.

First, in view of the appalling gap separating Christ's example and our performance, we church people — conservatives and liberals alike — need to declare a moratorium on pious platitudes, admit our hypocrisies, and re-examine what we really are living for in the context of Christ's imperatives.

Yes, Jesus a Liberal... and Ken you are a frightened human being... let it go... I'm not pushing anything on anyone... Christ loves everyone... man was made in God's image so deal with it... and me2 you and I both know it was the conservatives who wanted slavery... Abe Lincoln would be sickened by what has happened to his party... he was a man who stood on principle and believed in good for the common man... way different than the party you are tied to... Price... I agree with you in that there are many good Christians... unfortunately, there are many who are very ignorant and use Christ / God as a convenient excuse to denounce what they don't accept...

Conservative lawyers and judges have had no special reverence for Holmes, but they have backed themselves into a comparable understanding as they have recoiled from what they see as the vice of liberal jurisprudence: a cavalier willingness to appeal beyond the text of the «positive law,» the law that is posited or enacted, either in statutes or in the body of the Constitution.

All of us — conservatives who are attentive to what the Bible says about sexuality and indifferent to what it says about economics, and liberals who mumble about what the Bible says on sex but emphasize economics — all of us stand under the awareness that the primary commitments of our society amount to a choice of a path of death.

My wife, Christian, Democrat, and liberal, maintains that no conservative (as commonly refered to) can be a Christian because they so obviously ignore, or even deny what Jesus taught.

Henry rejected liberal versions of the social gospel which tended to be all social and no gospel, but he appealed to an earlier evangelical consensus of cultural engagement that included the work of William Wilberforce in campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade in England, the revivalist impulses of Charles G. Finney against slavery in this country, as well as evangelical concerns for suffrage, temperance, child labor laws, fair wages for workers, and many other progressive issues to which many theologically conservative Christians were once committed» before what David Moberg has called «the great reversal,» an evangelical withdrawal from such concerns.

Or, perhaps more importantly, what do the two texts reveal about the differences between liberal religious discourse and conservative religious discourse?