Talk:Liberal/Arch1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

This is a mess! Can someone archive some of it?


prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.

How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --Will N. 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)
The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. Miles 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.
But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.
I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.
I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually voiced moderate positions, and that he did not fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. Dpbsmith 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals and conservatives. - Suricou
But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. RobS 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

European Liberals

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --Mj 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


This refers to liberal parties such as the VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPOE in Austria, or maybe even the Liberal party in Australia. Outside of the US, the pro-businnes centre-right parties outnumber social liberal parties. You might want to look at the discussion on this subject on this page. Order 25 March, 9:15 (AEST)

In fact the UK Liberal Democrats are split on financial matters. Many traditional liberal supporters advocate a higher rate of taxation for high earners, for example, but there is a growing centre-right faction which favours a lower flat rate of taxation for all. Most UK Lib Dems however are broadly socially liberal in the classical sense - the party evolved from an amalgamation between the SDP, a break-off from the Labour party by centrist anti-militants, and the old Liberal Party of Lloyd George which had been mostly dormant for 50 or 60 years.

Traditionally the Lib Dems were the minority centre party between Labour and Conservatives - these days some might put them to the left of New Labour, even though they are expressly not Socialist. -- Olly 10:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The original Liberal Party was a classical liberal party that grew from the Whigs and other parliamentary factions. Not by coincidence, the Republican Party of the United States grew from the Whig and others parties before the American Civil War. The Liberals were often the right wing party in parts of the United Kingdom where the Conservative and Unionist Party was historically unpopular and the left wing party where Labour was historically unpopular. Although the Liberal Parties developed in most parts of the British Empire, the Conservatives did not travel well, and have no successor parties in the United States or Australia. While they may appear to be to the left of Labour on some issues, so is the Conservative Party. Liberals however do not consider themselves to be left wing. --The Four Deuces 19:42, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Sort order of priorities

How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --Mj 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Parochial definition

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --Horace 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."

Then start another section or something. Dpbsmith 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) Liberal Arts? (rimshot) Dpbsmith 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Vandalism?

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. MountainDew 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Aliens?

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --Itsjustme 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. MountainDew 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

So does George W. Bush. --Gulik 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Which is why I don't consider Bush a conservative. right_wing2 8 April 2007

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --Itsjustme 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --Gulik 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. Opacic 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? Mustaine12390 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Why were my changings reverted?

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --Itsjustme 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--Aschlafly 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --Itsjustme 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Foreign Treaties are liberal?

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --Dave3172 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --Fullmetajacket 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.Second Amendment 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)

President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --Fullmetajacket 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

References for the "typical" liberal positions?

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.


Reference to socialism

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.Order 13:45 (AEST)

Increased taxes?

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--Aschlafly 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--FPiaco 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Provide an example saying conservatives never raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. Dallas 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Re: Increased Taxes

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--Blr 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandments?

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
  2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
  6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
  • Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...


So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

British_cons (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --Jack 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal outside of the US

You cannot call liberals outside of the US socialists. Neither are socialists abroad liberal. In many countries, the Liberals are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- Order 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

For liberal parties in Europe check [1], for socialist parties check [2]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- Order 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)

Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--AustinM 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --Itsjustme 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

So why were MY changes deleted?

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, Blr had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily want to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --FPiaco 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. British_cons (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and "taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about Peter Singer? Is that a liberal thing to do?--Aschlafly 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Links?

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --Chuck SMITH 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this is a very good point. Shouldn't all of these be red links?--British_cons (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll set some up.

False Statement

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent organised prayer in public schools. Nirgal 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why can't this page be edited?

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. Menkatron 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --FPiaco 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Giving to the poor

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).Boethius 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? Miles 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". Boethius 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a difference of who should provide- individuals through voluntary charity, or forced through government programs. A more accurate definition might be to add the words 'forced... through government programs' to the definition. right_wing2 7 April 2007

You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?MatteeNeutra 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. Miles 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Alternate defintion of liberal

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of conservative that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? Myk 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."
When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list... --BDobbs 21:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Beliefs

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide: support of gun control, taxpayer funding of abortion, support of gun control, distributing wealth from the rich to the poor, government programs to rehabilitate criminals, increased taxpayer funding of public school, taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care, increased taxes, support of government programs such as welfare, teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site. --Liberalmedia 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberalmedia- The list of liberal beliefs, possibly changed since your post, notes that this is defining liberals in the US today. right_wing2 7 April 2007

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--British_cons (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --Rafa 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism in the US- additional Liberals believe in the rights of 'groups' over the rights of 'individuals' Liberals tend believe that the best way to help people is through government programs right_wing2 8 April 2007

Unlock Page

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liberalmedia (talk)

Conservapedia:Request Unprotection is thataway. --Interiot 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. Boethius 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. Myk 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberals and Saddam

The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--Murray 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on conservative said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. User:Order
This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were the only group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. RobS 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --Murray 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the Powell Doctrine which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
Ooooh, and guess who was right?-AmesG 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

RobS, it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. Order 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)

Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, comrade: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
..who really supports the troops? Hint: not the Bush administration.-AmesG 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of modern 21st century warfare. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[3]

Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at Abu Ghraib. Arundati Roy, et al, are self identified comrades with murderers and terrorists. RobS 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-AmesG 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.

Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...

As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.

The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.

So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? RobS 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.
There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. User:Order 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)
Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department.
My Historical Revisionism Sense is tingling....
[4] No U.S. Backup Strategy For Iraq
[5]Biden Says U.S. Forces in Iraq Insufficient to Fight Insurgents
I can probably find a few hundred more like that if I try. Bush started this war without sufficient troops, sufficient body armor, or anything resembling a good plan. Blaming it on the goods in uniform who swore an oath to obey his orders is pretty shabby. --BDobbs 21:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war.
P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.RobS 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. Order 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)

Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -AmesG 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
So is the argument (again) that because didn't have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam before he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. RobS 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

You just come with your talking-points. The talking points business an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your talking point list say about this topic? Order 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.
And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. Myk 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--Jack 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberals in Europe

I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.Order

This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. RobS 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. Order 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

Gun Control

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [6]

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. --Liberalmedia 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. Noodles 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Libmed is right Flippin 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Cites

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a conservative economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--Crackertalk 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[7] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.
Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and assumed it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!
The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --Crackertalk 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Protection

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? Myk 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it.  ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought only registered users could edit at all. Myk 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. Myk 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)TerryK Talk2Me! 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Broadest possible application

The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. RSchlafly 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What was it that Tony Snow was saying yesterday? That Congress has no oversight authority over the Executive Branch? Which party is it that is altering constitutional principles? Which party argued that the constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus? --Jack 19:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
SHUT UP OR THE TERRORISTS WIN, Jack. --BDobbs 21:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Congress really doesn't have Oversight of the Executive. They are (nominally) co-equal, however with Congress solely responsible for appropriations, it is hard to see the equality. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

How can we forget the fact that...

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their bias everywhere like a plague. --BillOReillyFan 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

Oh, Liberals try to draw their morality and worldview from actual physical events and their own conciences, rather than basing it all on a 1700-year-old collection of legends. That is why they are ALL EVIL AND MUST BE KILLED FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN!!1!!1@!!one!! --BDobbs 21:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Isolationist vs Interventionalists

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between isolationists and interventionists, and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. User:Order 24 March 13:30

What this does is deny that liberals openly opposed the stated war aims in 2003, and denies that today they are actively seeking for the US to abandon the democratically elected govenrnment of Iraq. RobS 20:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You presume that all conservatives support the war, while that is demonstrably not the case. On the other hand, how many liberals support American intervention in Darfur? Support or disapproval of one solitary front amongst a plethora of foreign policy actions does not an isolationist policy make. --ReaganLives 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't presume anything about conservatives; the case is stated exactly as such: the US Govt declared a policy of regime change in Iraq to support long held US foreign policy objectives going back to Woodrow Wilson. Extreme elements at that time who self-identifed as "liberal" opposed US policy. Today, four years later, more self-identified "liberals" opposed US support for the democratic govt of Iraq. RobS 21:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

In history republicans have been at least as often isolationists as democrats. For example G.W.Bush before he became president. It might be that whoever is not in power favors isolationist positions, and they turn into intervetionists as soon as they come to power. User:Order

It is not liberal vs conservative, it is "liberal" vs US Govt foreign policy. This indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior, activism and contravention of a democaratically elected governments long standing policy that has had supporters from both major parties for at least three generations. And that active opposition not only (a) remains today, it has (b) spread to more "moderate" elements, and (c) actively seeks to undermine support for a "liberal" ally--the democratically elected government of Iraq. This is a milestone in politcal events.

What goes unstated in this historic retelling of the past four years, IMO is this: many who claim the label of "liberal" either (a) are not, or (b) do not know what the word means.

And a final observation: it is not critics of these sad events fault that so-called "liberalism", which is probably a misnomer to begin with, it's not thier fault this sorry state of affairs has come to what it is. Here's another theory: perhaps now we know why neo-cons divorced themselves from the label "liberal". RobS 22:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Even if most liberals did not support such a foreign policy, one shouldn't use this to define the term "liberal" if a significant number of conservatives also have exhibited and continue to exhibit isolationism. ColemanFrancis 22:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

As stated, its not ideological or a "lberal v conservative' thing. One hasn't seen conservative marching in the streets to oppose liberation of the Iraqi people. Similiarly, isolationists like the America First Committee, were very often called fascists. The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic. See below for further discussion. RobS 22:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying it's a liberal vs. conservative thing. I'm just saying that if a significant number of conservatives (who are generally ideologically opposed to liberals) agree with liberals on this one issue, it should not be used in the definition of "liberal". ColemanFrancis 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually that may not be supported by the facts; looking at the pure politics of the matter, GOP is moreless united in support of the President's policy, whereas the Democratic Party, in both the electorate & members of Congress--prior to the elections and now--is divided on the issue. RobS 23:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The truth is one can support an ideal without supporting the way it's executed. But you know that, because you're a smart guy. You just choose not to know it right now. Oh, and you're also equating the GOP with conservatives. They're not the same. You know that, too.Myk 00:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Looking at the discussion, you'll see the qualifications: "indeed is not even ideological or a way of thinking; it refers to behavior...etc.", and "looking at the pure politics of the matter" where I go onto cite both major parties by name. So the objection you state above could legitimately be refered to as a "non-responsive response". RobS 00:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Exactly as you say [User:RobS|RobS: the democratic party is diveded on this issue. So don't put in the definition of liberal (which isn't the same as democrat, but lets forget about that for a sec) that they all oppose/support a certain policy, because they don't actually agree. User:Order

Foreign Policy

Is it at all credible to say that liberals do not support the spread of democracy and human rights? Surely even a twelve-year-old in your average public school can see that it's not a question of liberal opposition to these values but a debate over 1. thwe implementation of such a policy and 2. the mobilisation of a discourse of human rights when other motivations may be at the heart of a policy designed to propagate said values? -Sevenstring.

Sevenstring, see my response directly above, it address exactly the same question. RobS 22:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Disputed text

  • Opposition to American foreign policy [1] which advocates human rights [2] democracy [3]

References

  1. Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme(PDF).
  2. "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals" by Gal Beckerman, The Forward, September 30, 2005.
  3. President Bush's address to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.

Other sources

A wealth of sources.
According to Wikipedia, "ANSWER was one of several groups organizing the U.S. component of the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest, which was, across the globe, the largest anti-war rally that has ever taken place.[1] ANSWER sponsored emergency demonstrations just before the launch of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, on March 15, 2003, which according to its website drew 100,000 people each in San Francisco and Washington. "
Two problems with these links. 1) Many antiwar protester were liberal, indeed, but many weren't. Just because most weren't conservative doesn't mean that they were automatically liberal. 2) Many liberals were supporting the invasion of Iraq, because they believed it would advance human rights and democracry. Conclusion: War protestors not equal too liberals. User:Order
Robert Fisk has twice interviewed bin Laden, and the earlier interview is incomplete in all internet versions, if memory serves me.
This article is not opposing foreign policy advancing human rights, it is opposing foreign policy which the article calims is to advance oil interests, dressed up as advancing human rights. That is Fisk's point, like it or not. User:Order
Exactly. Bush, as the President, articulated US foreign policy in the same vein his predessors had going back to Wilson; hence, Bush's articulation of US foreign policy, in his role as the Chief Executive, is what American foreign policy is. Period. Fisk, whom nobody elected, questions the integrity of this claim. Fine. That is his free speech perogative. Many persons who self-identify as "liberal" signed on to this opinion. Fine. Hence we have the logical conclusion,
"many persons who self-identify as 'liberal' oppose American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy."'
This is not my invention; it is thier own language and actions. And further evidence is added by the fact that while in 2003, extreme elements who may not have been real liberals, initiated this opposition movement. Since then however, more moderate elements, many likewise claiming the mantle of "liberal", now actively advocate withdrawing support from a liberal democracy elected by universal suffarage. RobS 14:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The problem is that Fisk et al. just don't believe the president when he says that he does it to further human rights. Maybe, they are even in favor of policy that advaces human right they just don't see it in the policies of the president. If anything it should be Refusal to see the current foreign policy to advance human rights.User:Order 27 March.
A problem for the current adimintration is that the elected government, and the majority of Iraqis also want the Americans to leave. You might argue that this is not wise to do, but hey still want it. User:Order 27 March.

Discussion

Let's examine footnote 2, "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals", extract:

"Answer has had a strong hand in organizing many of the substantial anti-war gatherings since September 11, 2001. A few scratches at the surface of the organization reveals just how far outside the mainstream its ideology resides.
The lead group in Answer is the International Action Center. Led by the former attorney general turned extreme-left activist Ramsey Clark, Answer is considered widely to be a front organization for the notorious Workers World Party. The WWP is a communist group, formed in the late 1950s as a breakaway faction from the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party.
"The WWP decided it would support even the most dictatorial of Communist leaders if their mission was to undermine America and its allies — something that didn’t sit well with most Trotskyites — and its final rift with the Socialist Workers Party was over the WWP’s support of the crushing Soviet incursion into Hungary in 1956. The WWP went on to back the Chinese government and its tanks against the dissidents in Tiananmen Square, tout the virtue of the North Korean regime and openly state its support for dictators like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.
And the organization’s wider agenda was well on display at a rally that preceded the march in Washington, D.C., this past Saturday: A hodgepodge of speakers representing diverse leftist causes took the stage — from supporters of Fidel Castro’s Cuba to opponents of the Philippine government. And, predictably, the Palestinian cause held center stage, with at least a dozen speakers, wearing kaffiyehs wrapped around their necks and demanding a full right of return for Palestinian refugees, a stipulation any knowledgeable observer of the conflict understands as a death knell for Israel.
Answer’s wider agenda has made it easy for the right to launch attacks on the anti-war movement as it has picked up steam over the last three years. Anytime Answer is involved, the organization becomes an easy and obvious target, as well as a vehicle for criticizing other anti-war activists....
  • Yes, Conservative, errr, Rob, I hear you. ;-) Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?

Soooo...this organization was in the forefront of organizing and leading todays anti-war movement before there even was an anti-war movement. And these visionaries call themselves '"liberal", "socialist", and "progresive", and have advocated such progressive reforms as the Tiananmen massacre. Who were the students at Tiananmen? Why they were a Chinese democratic movement stomped out in its infancy, from which the terrorism of the regime has stifled any further democratic hopes for two decades now, and the people remain essentially without any human rights.

The floor is now open for discussion....

The floor was open for discussion all the time. It was just you who didn't want to discuss.
Anyway, at the time of the tienamen massacre, we had a Bush administration. Furthermore, you make the same mistake all over again. Just because a few vocal anti-war protesters claim to speak for all liberals, doens't mean it is true. User:Order 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
This makes no sense. Sr. Bush was reponsible for Tiananmen? Lame excuse and irrelevent for the fact that the heart and soul of this "liberal" anti-war movement today (a) was anti-democratic in the Tainanmen massacre and other occasions; (b) accepted human rights abuses as part of its program. And a further point, the founders and leaders of the current anti-war movement also are known for thier anti-Semitic views--a fact which reared its head again last election season among other liberals not associated with ANSWER. RobS 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The chinese government was responsible for Tienanmen. You blame liberal for complicity in the Tienanmen massrce, so when you cast the ball, expect it to return. [User:Order]] 26 March 15:30 (AEST)

User:Order stated, interventionist foreign policies that involves nation building; can we say then Liberals oppose intervention and nation building in Durfur, and President Clinton had nothing to appologize for regarding Rwanda? RobS 23:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Republicans opposed nation building by Clinton, and Liberals nation building by Bush. User:Order 26 March 14:30 (AEST)

To wit: [8]
That does not answer the specific question above. Try it again, please. For internal logic to your arguement, you must be consistent. Four years ago it was fashionable to be pro-Ba'athist, now the real aims of the "liberal" program are obvious, i.e. subverting the liberal democracy in Iraq that has granted universal sufferage and is making efforts to advance human rights. RobS 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Nobody was pro-Ba'athist a few years ago, just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's. He was perceived as the lesser evil; a few years ago by many liberals, and in the 80s by many conservatives. You have to accept the fact that in foreign policy you have to sometime work with people who are wrong, but are the best alternative of many even worse ones, and it can be even difficult to deterime who is actually the lesser evil. Your allegations are as naive as anti-war allegations against Rumsfeld. Blame me for Realpolitik. User:Order 26 March 14:30 (AEST)
  • Nobody was pro-Ba'athist
See < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest >; reports "between six and ten million people" in 800 cities opposed American foreign policy which advocates human rights democracy, and in favor of insuring the survival of the fascist Ba'athist regime.
Again, they just didn't buy Bushs argument that it had to be done to advance human rights. They were not protesting for Saddam, or against human rights, they were protesting against Bush. You might think that this is the same, but they didn't think like you do.User:Order
No matter. This discussion about an ideological view will go no where with constantly inject terms like "Bush" "Democrat", or "Republican" into into. So what so we know? The President articluated a policy. People who do not hold the Office of the President rejected the policy, as is their right. What was the policy? Support for human right and democracy. What policy did the persons, without Constitutional authority, reject? Support for human rights and democracy. How do we know this true? The same persons, self-identified as 'liberal", are actively seeking to withdraw American support for the liberal democracy that currently hold power in Iraq. RobS 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You ask What is the policy?. Your answer is: Support for human rights and democracy.. The liberals answer is Its not about human rights and democracy.. Both are opinions. And both have no place in this article. But I will edit your edit, to reflect the refusal of liberal to see these policies as advancement of human rights and democracy. Because at it now it pushes one opinion. User:Order 27 March, 12:55 (AEST)
The policy of the US Government is not an opinion, it's a policy. The opinion of private citizens that opposes the official US Government policy of advocating human rights and democracy abroad is an opinion.
Two issues are with this: First, you do believe the claims of the policy makers about their aims. Second, you do believe that the policy is suited to achieve the aim. Lets take the "Defense of Marriage Act" by Clinton as an example.
  • Firstly, you may or may not believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage.
  • Secondly, even if you do believe that Clinton wants to defend the marriage, you might think that Clinton's "Defense of Marriage Act" fails to do so.
  • Furthermore, you might think that defending marriage is none of the states business.
  • And finally, you might think that marriage should be abolished as an old fashioned institute, rather than defended.
In the same spirit you have:
  • People who just don't believe Bush, when he says he does it for human rights.
  • There are people who say that they believe his intentions but that that his foreign policy is not achieving his aim.
  • Then there are people that claim that the US should not use the military to advance human rights and democracy.
  • And finally you have people who reject human rights and democracy.
And what you do is, you lump everybody together in the last group, even though it is really just a minority of those who oppose Bush's foreign policy. Just like it was just a minority of those who opposed Clinton Defense of Marriage act, who opposed marriage. User:Order 27 March 13:45 (AEST)
OK, so they don't beleive the government is sincere. Big deal. Nonetheless, that puts them in opposition to the governments declared policy. Secondly, they are just a random collection of private citizens--without any Constitutional authority whatsoever (other than thier individual First Amendment rights) to pulbicly express thier opposition to the governments stated policy of fostering democracy and human rights abroad. Third, the government has a track record now of (a) removing a fascist regime and (b) securing universal suffarage and assisting a democratically elected regime to power. By contrast, our "liberal" friends have a track record of (a) arguing for the survival of fascism and (b) actively seeking to undermine a liberal democracy that is also an ally.
Everything up to By contrast is kind of true. But our liberal friends would deny that they argure in favor of fascism and they would deny that they want to undermine a liberal democracy. You have to give them the right to sincerely believe that they don't, just like Bush has the right to sincerly believe that his policy is fostering democracy in the Middel East. That you or I think that they are mistaken doesn't matter. Order 27 March 15:00
The Defense of Marriage Act is not really a very good analogy, primarily because there is a difference between law and policy. And Bill Clinton isn't a dictator, the President has no legislative authority.
There is a difference between law and policy, but in both cases you can have people who disagree with it for various reasons. And in a way, people should be more inclined to subscribe to a law, than to a policy, because as you said, a president doesn't have any legislative authority. Order 27 March 15:00
Beleive it or not, there is a strong parallel between this discussion and the one about homosexuals in the Nazi party. In both instances, early on extreme elements (here it was ANSWER and other radicals, there it was gay stormtroopers) who advocated a position that was outside the mainstream. Over time, moderate elements adopted thier radical views and gave it legitimacy, so that it did not seem radical, extreme and fringe anymore. Once it became a majority, and had the reigns of power, then these anti-democratic and anti-human rights positions can be implemented, and they don't seem so radical now that so-called "centrists" or respectable people embrace these ideas, thus upsetting the long held public policy positions that advocate basic fairness for all people.
This is moving off-topic. But lets me say this much. In the beginning of the 3rd Reich there were gays who were pushing the Nazi agenda, but there were no Nazis who pushed the gay agenda. Big difference, to gay liberals who push a gay liberal agenda.Order 27 March 15:00
Actually I think it's right on topic cause it gives us an excellant understanding of both controversy in both articles. What began as fringe became mainstream in both instances. On the Hitler page we are right a the Night of the Long Knives; this is a crucial point, cause it was here that Nazism gained respectability by the middle class when it abandoned it's "extremist" roots. But now we see it was middle class respectable folk who actually unkowningly or unwittingly actually embraced extremism. RobS 01:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It is off-topic here, especially if we repeat our gay Nazi discussion all over. I'll take this discussion to your talk page Talk RobS Night of the long_knives. See you there. Order 27 March 17:15 (AEST)
Your arguement is little more than Bush et al are bad guys and suffer from bad polling numbers. So what. It's just your opinion, and I can't find the words "opinion polls" anywhere in the US Constitution. But in the final analysis, we see so-called "liberals" no longer advocate human rights and democracy, and if anything, they, and now their "middle class" allies, have become more strident, stringent, and hostile to those long held goals of US foreign policy. RobS 00:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Where did I say that Bush is a bad guy? I said liberals have the right to believe that Bush is a bad guy, and not believe his claims. And Bush has bad poll numbers, indeed. People got a hangover from interventionist policies and are tending towards isolationist positions. Not for the first time in American history.Order 27 March 15:00
Not to get sidetracked, but this discussion is similiar to athiesm. For example, I may hold the opinion that I do not beleive in stop signs, and therefore efforts by others to impose thier morality on me by erecting stop signs does not apply to me, because they can not force me to accept thier law and/or opinion. So watch out when I'm behind the wheel, cause nobody can legislate morality and impose thier value systems on me by forcing me to obey stop signs. RobS 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • just as much as Rumsfeld was pro-Ba'athist when he met Saddam in the 80's
Newsflash: Democratic Presidential Candidate and Governors Assoc. Chairman, Gov. Bill Richardson also "shook hands with Saddam" when Richardson "met him in Baghdad" "in the 1980s", likewise. RobS 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh Saddam was the West's darling in the 80s. And Rumsfeld gave him useful information and weapons in addition to a handshake. But again, neither of them was pro-Ba'athis. They were choosing the lesser evil. User:Order 27 March.
You've said it twice now [9][10] of fascism and democracy, fascism is the lesser of two evils. You've convinced me to reinsert the passage. RobS 20:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The choice wasn't between fascism and democracy. In the 80s it was a choice between Iraqi fascism and Iranian theocracy and in this decade between state violence by Saddam and civil war between Sunnis and Shia. And don't claim that nobody could have predicted it. Many did. For example a conservative German politician, Toedenhoefer who said (figuratively) before the war that every day of war in Iraq will lead to one year of terrorism in the Middle East. So, there were concerned people, before the war, who weren't liberal, who found it tough to choose between chaos and Saddam. [User:Order]] 27 March, 13:15 (AEST)
  • We again have too beasts here. It isn't fair to Clinton, per se, to say that. Clinton, if not distracted with his perjury before a Federal Circuit Judge, which is what he was really scared of, not Impeachment, for it was a true Felony, would undoubtedly followed State's advisory and entered the fray in Africa. We have been working hard, for years, to remove the domestic idealogy from our Foreign Policy...as it costs us billions every year. The Congress was surprisingly open to aid packages when requested, by Clinton.
(a) did Republicans threaten to withhold funding for Kosovo? (b) did Repubs cutoff aid for Kosovo? (c) did Repubas march int he street to protest Kosovo? etc. etc. etc. RobS 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
How many American soldiers died in Kosovo? Myk 01:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Is that the measure of success? RobS 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
(a) It looks like the considered it [11] (b) How diffcult is it for you to understand that Liberals unequal democrats unequal Anti-War crowd? User:Order
That is exactly the point in the above language proposed for inclusion. Somehow we got off on a discussion of politcs. Point is "liberals" whoever that group is, I personally don't beleive many of them actually have an ideology, of if they do, they can't tell you what it is. RobS 01:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Comment: One big charge on an ideological plane conservatives make against liberals is changing the meanings of words to suit whatever the purpose of the moment is. We see this on the mainspace in the discussion about a "living constitution", that liberal judges, at a particular moment, can invent meanings in the text of the Consitution out of thin air that just aren't there in the words of the original. Or the old example whetever the meaning of is is, etc. For this discussion, unless you guys can nail it down, and refute the mountain of sources available at our fingertips, this passage will go back in. Because the meanings of the words are factual. RobS 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Conservative, errr, Rob, I hear you. Could you be so kind as to bold what the heck passage you are saying is going to be re-inserted unless proof to your personal satisfaction is provided?

That was very poor humor. Just frustrated, because the amount of material and posts, makes me lose track. The argument is lost in all the hundreds of posts and documentation, the focus, for me, is lost. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Here. [12] The Wikipedia technique of talking a matter to death don't work here. That's what conservativism is--not losing focus of one's values and views. Might I suggest the shifting sand of so-called "liberalism" is based upon moods, emotion, fads, fashion, and fancy, hence the difficulting of nailing down what its fundemental core principals are? RobS 13:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, no one but you has been talking anything to death. You are not a plain speaker. You are drowning people in endless citations. Say what it is you want to include! Exactly. Word for word. If it is ok, and proper to the page, I will leave it. If not, like Conservative, I will remove it. Please stop the veiled threats about what you will do. --~ TerryK MyTalk 03:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's commend Sevenstring for this edit, [13]. Following the discussion closely and weighing the arguments he placed a good powder puff over a blemish that now even turns stern criticism to advantage. Well done! RobS 12:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Internal consistency

My impression of Liberalism in the U.S. is that it has many internal contradictions. For example, on abortion, liberals assert a woman's right to choose. But in economics, they insist on limiting people's choices, favoring all sorts of socialist schemes.

They say they are for personal freedom but are extremely soft on slavery in the Sudan and they never criticize Communism for its totalitarian dictatorships.

They say they are for human rights, particularly the right not to be killed by one's own government or foreign invaders. But they are utterrly silent on the 60 to 210 million people murdered by Communist governments.

They are fond of pointing out evil in non-Liberals (like Adolf Hitler) but express admiration for murderous thugs like Che Guevera and genocidal maniacs like Mao Tsu-Tung.

This list could be extended greatly. On the other hand, we conservatives must now air our own dirty laundry, lest we neglect Nietszched's warning about turning into monsters. --Ed Poor 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Since Hitler believed in a strong central government/welfare state, it is historically incorrect to refer to him as a "Conservative", as we use the term in the United States. IMO. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Of course. That's why I tagged him as a non-Liberal. On the other hand, the tag right wing always carries a painful and insulting connotation of being Hitler-like. You'll surely have noticed how many times liberals have branded US conservative president George Bush a kind of Hitler, or compared America's only ally in the Middle East - Israel - to Nazis. --Ed Poor 09:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed! Don't forget your signature! :p It is the same disinformation as the CE/BCE crap. See the commandments talk page, "Grammar" entry. I know you knew, just was throwing it out there, as I sometimes do, for the confused. --~ TerryK MyTalk 09:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a good example: Volkswagan was founded as a state enterprise by the Nazi government [14][15] Hence with this example, we see the Socialist side of the "means of production" employed in the Nazi the state. RobS 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
'they never criticize Communism for its totalitarian dictatorships.' I'm a liberal (by Conservapedian standards anyway); I criticise China; that statement is wrong. I'd like some sources for your 'facts', to counter mine - Amnesty International (a liberal organisation? a conservative one? take your pick!) condemns China, for example. Wikinterpreter
proposed compromise: "rarely are Communist totalitarian dictatorships criticized" RobS 20:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed, RobS--have you two ever actually TALKED to a so-called "liberal"? Because your view of them sounds like out-takes from a Rush Limbaugh blooper reel. --BDobbs 21:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools