Sentences with phrase «other liberals think»

Not exact matches

Others in the business think the secret to greater acceptance lies in building a distribution network and courting liberal - minded builders rather than targeting home buyers.

The Liberals have also put this budget through a gender - based analysis, which involves thinking about how a certain measure might affect men and women, or boys and girls, in a different ways, while accounting for other intersecting factors such as income, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation.

«I don't think you can go any more liberal — other than giving the inmates the keys.»

In other words, plan fiduciaries now will have greater freedom to expend portfolio resources to effect liberal social goals simply by claiming that they think doing so will have long - term benefits without having to quantify those benefits.

Ezra Klein: There is a quality of being able to say no and being able to shop around and being able to do things on your timetable that really matters here, but the other thing that I think is interesting there, because here's where I think possibly liberals can take this argument too far.

The election of a majority Liberal government not only saw high - profile changes in rhetoric — think, «Canada is back» — but also equally lauded announcements on accepting 25,000 refugees from Syria, international peacekeeping, or a bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council, among others.

Most of today's espousers of the liberal peace justify punishment, however, not by Kant's retributivism but through the later thought of utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham, who held that the purpose of punishment is to deter others from committing crimes and to rehabilitate the offender.

The liberal group People for the American Way's report on how conservative foundations have deployed vast sums to support think tanks, friendly media and other institutions that promote right - wing causes is titled «Buying a Movement.»

Our task was to reformulate our liberal heritage in light of liberation thinking but also with a view to rethinking the relation of Christianity to the natural world and to other religious traditions.

Liberals generally are for the killing of babies and other horendous ideas that war against the sanctity and liberty of human beings... Giving men with this kind of a world view «equal time» isn't what I think God desires.

Now, Liberals and others who think differently and have moved here are bound and determined to vilify, mock, discount and basically just undo it all and are now (very rapidly I might add) doing so with Mr. Obama.

I guess I feel the same way about a liberal agenda that say that to get out of debt we have to spend more, or that my tax dollars have to pay for something I think is morally wrong (Obamacare sets up a fund to pay for late term abortions) or a government that confiscates kids lunches, or tells me how much soda I can drink, or uses my tax money to choose winners and losers (mostly losers but Obma doners) in energy production that produces no energy yet we are sitting on more coal and oil than any other nation on the planet.

In other contexts, such as that of social action, we may want liberals to be more assertive about convictions that divide them from others; to be willing, for example, to call a social policy unchristian that they think is unchristian.

I think the bottom line is that if liberals want to give women (and others) the right to choose what to do with «their body» and «in their bedrooms» I think it would only be consistent to allow the rest of us the right to choose what to do with our bodies, our wallets, and in our houses.

It's good to know what others think, be they secular, liberal or evangelical.

I also on the flip - side don't want to play according to others rules and demand either, like by political correctness, dismissing some real facts and truth, or being told by what I call liberal fascist and others how I should think, live, eat, read, or believe.

In the heyday of the liberal social gospel which occurred at the same time that form criticism and other important New Testament studies were making a fresh impact on Christian thought, the kingdom was considerably explored.

This conflict has emerged between the liberal and militant activist pastors and denominational leaders, on the one hand, and a large body of more conservative laymen, on the other hand, who think the church should stick to spiritual matters and stop meddling in politics and «social» issues.

I think both liberals and conservatives try to force beliefs on others to an extent.

The only other reason I can think of is that she is intentionally being deceptive because she knows that the typical On Faith reader (secular, liberal, atheistic) isn't going to know any better, much less care whether she is accurately conveying Jesus» meaning.

Hilarious that most of you are rednecks who get welfare and other public benefits but are the first to scourge (look it up) the liberal thinking.

When I'm out speaking to churches and other organizations, I can use your article as a prime example of all that's wrong and illiberal in liberal thinking and how unfair it is to those who don't agree with the totalizing claims of sexual liberation.

These ways of thinking are recent liberal ideas that all people should be nice to each other.

I think it is appropriate in our liberal democracy for Christians, along with adherents of other religions, to make decisions about political issues on the basis of whatever considerations they find true and relevant.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans thought the world stage had been cleared for our benevolent power to lift others to the broad, sunlit uplands of liberal democracy and free - market prosperity.

In short, I think that so - called liberals and so - called evangelicals have important truths to urge upon each other.

Based on your thinking, if we had 5 liberal justices the ruling would have went the other way because their morals are different.

This understanding of freedom follows from the natural - rights liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Robert Nozick, but it is also consistent with the rights - generating rule - utilitarianism of Herbert Spencer and others.

The only way they can hold the existing party together is to hope for an evolution in thought over the next 4 years, producing a more socially liberal base (possible... but won't happen quickly) or to have some other very large even occur which puts the dems in such a bad light as to lift the pressure (possible, but won't reverse the social trends).

Perhaps it may be right to say, that in general the politically conscious educated middle class of India were guided more by the Liberal and Marxian ideologies than the Gandhian or other versions of reformed Hindu thought.

There, in a nutshell, is the line of thinking that made Lasch such a blister to many liberals and conservatives: his condemnation of corporate and governmental power grabs, his attachment to a robust vision of democratic citizenship, and his conviction that the social work establishment, educators, therapists, and other semi-skilled technocrats had undermined the competence of the middle class, while subjecting the poor to «new controls sincerely disguised as benevolence.»

Forget it S21, trying to get Atheists / Liberals to have a cogent thought is like trying to get Democrats / Liberals to spend less of other people's money... impossible.

I applaud people who have chosen that path and stick to it, and I must say I find it intensely tedious to listen to those cynical «vegan - bashers» who think they are amusing as they snark away at vegans without having any idea why they are even doing so, other than being threatened by something they don't understand, or by some vague aversion they have to any spiritual - sounding practice or «liberal - hippie - sounding» philosophy.

This brouhaha keeps them thinking about it, not because they read the New Yorker, but because we now have something that has the liberals poking fun at the rednecks AND up in arms with each other — a real two - fer.

The government is charged vociferously with paying too much attention to faith groups (accused by left - liberal secularists of an unprincipled timidity on faith schools, being too open to faith engagement in third sector; and of being generally rather socially conservative; and, alternatively, by the right having a cynical multiculturalist approach to minority faiths as electoral blocs) and also of too little attention to faith (with some «competitive grievance» claims that Muslims are getting too much attention, by some claiming to speak for some other minority faiths and by some Christian voices; and traditionalists who think there is a secret project to do in every institution).

With the general election - and another possible hung parliament - now due next year, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are thinking more seriously about the idea of working with each other.

If only of course the 34th were a «liberal» district as opposed to a relatively conservative district for NYC — maybe you think the other voters of the 34th might want a say in who represents them?

The clarification was necessary presumably because he had become painfully aware that the other kind of liberalism — the «muscular» one that has a much clearer idea of the right way to act, speak and even think — was a powerful, increasingly hegemonic force in the liberal circles in which he moved.

With his reputation and media connections, particularly to the Murdochs, he is better placed than any other Tory one can think of to see this sort of liberal initiative through.

As mentioned earlier, Cameron, Clegg and other key figures in the Coalition such as Michael Gove, like to think of themselves (and portray themselves) as radical and «progressive», dragging the country forwards into the global, liberal future — much like their role model, Tony Blair, did before them.

Liberal activists who have been critical of Cuomo on education and other issues think an insurgent with greater name recognition could provide a stronger challenge, even though polls say Cuomo is still popular among Democratic voters statewide.

«I think the main impact has been to solidify the alliances between the gay community and the other liberal groups in the Democratic Party,» Krasner said.

Others may be tempted to do so because they think it is a way to punish the Liberal Democrats — and Nick Clegg in particular — for the decision to join a Conservative - led government.

Cahill, a life - long Democrat whose mother would disown him if he even thought of joining the other side, is a tax - and - spend liberal to his bones.

«But I do think that Australia, along with other liberal democracies around the world, have got to take the threat of foreign interference seriously.»

I think is fairly described as a very robust Labour tribalist from a trade union organiser background (I would place him very much on the right of the party, though you may well approve of his rebelling on ID cards, 90 days detention, the 10p tax rate and other more left / liberal rebellions, which shows he is not easily pigeonholed).

He also had a warning for progressive voters who may «vote Liberal Democrat or Green because they think they can have a free hit at the government, because they may be upset over Iraq or some other issue».

, who was a key backer of the public insurance option during the health - care debate, said he thinks the P Street Project can help provide resources and political cover for other liberal lawmakers.

I think it's clear that the coalition agreement committed the Liberal Democrat front bench to the boundary review, but others will doubtless disagree.

I don't think we should choose one or the other, what I'm simply saying is that if you think about the heritage of the Liberal Democrats going back a century or more, one might have thought if we'd entered the coalition that Blair and Ashdown were looking at in the mid - «90s, we might well have lost our identity.