Little Hawk: Well, if you did understand him you would not for a moment dream that he is in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.

Dude, he is exactly in the same camp as Limbaugh and Coulter: presenting, with no facts or logic or sympathy, extreme positions that tend to demonize another group of people. I care less that Limbaugh et al are far right conservatives than that they are loud-mouthed know-nothings who are full of hate. Rather like Akenaton, in this thread at least. How you can call someone a far-left true liberal who wants to deny civil rights to a group of other people is beyond me. I'm sure, like most of us, he has some stances would be considered liberal and some that are conservative, but on this topic he is a knee-jerk reactionary anti-liberal.

And: It's a form of liberalism devoted to silencing anyone who doesn't parrot the going party line, whatever the going party line may be. That is what Akenaton is criticizing in modern "liberalism".

I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer. What makes you think anyone here is trying to silence anyone else? Akenaton has said that several times, and you've said it at least twice, but I've yet to see any actual evidence of it. Also, Akenaton has been referring to anyone who disagrees with him as one of these "modern liberals." Since the basic premise seems to be that "modern liberals" are complete assholes, don't be surprised when people who really are liberals get a bit hot about it. I actually don't know anyone who fits the modern-liberalism-as-anti-true-liberalism mold. Do you? Can you provide some examples? I understand that every movement has its jerks, but do you really believe that fair-minded individual pays any attention to them?

And: You seem not to have the will or the inclination to bother actually trying to understand what he is saying.

I've also asked this before without getting an answer: Haven't you noticed that most everyone on this thread has been asking Akenaton to explain himself? He hasn't done so, of course, because he doesn't have any real basis for the things he's been saying.

If you understand him so well, perhaps you could let the rest of us know what it is he's really saying. So far it's been "normalizing homosexuality is dangerous" and "AIDS is a gay disease." Can you rationally support either of those statements, or explain them from your position of superior Ake-understanding?