Point #28 should be edited to remove, "Never say it about fellow liberals", since CP's "Breaking News" quotes Hillary saying it about Obama. In fact, the Breaking News entry even refers to point #28. So either Obama is not liberal, or Point #28 should be modified.--Jdellaro 10:59, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Good point, but Obama is not a fellow liberal with respect to Hillary. He is an "adversary" to Hillary. Any suggestions to make more precise, while keeping it concise?--Aschlafly 11:02, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Instead of using "Never", perhaps use the word "rarely". --Jdellaro 13:38, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- Good suggestion. "Rarely" is weaker than I'd like, but let's use it as the best suggestion so far. Thanks.--Aschlafly 13:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)
"referring to Israel as "occupied territories""
Hello, I notice the article (which is very funny and good by the way) gets it right about "occupied" "palestinian" territories, but conservapedia article for Israel doesnt'! If you look at the map it shows east-jerusalem and ALL judea-samaria, golan hights, as not Israel, even parts that are definely Jewish. maybe some of the "Palestinian" cities, like area "A" in Oslo treaties, should not be mapped in Israel. But absolutely east-jerusalem must be, since it is annexed to Israel since 1980s, and not even liberals expect Israel to give it up to the terrorists. same for golan. i would remove the map myself but, the artical is "locked" from vandalisms.
Neville Chamberlain was a conservative Prime Minister, it's a bit foolish to criticise a liberal trait and use a conservative as an example.--JesusIsMyHomeboy 22:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)
While I understand that conservapedia wishes to be encyclopedia with a conservative bias, there is a difference between childish name calling and factual data. Please I beg you hearsay and opinion are no basis for an encyclopedia. Rellik 23:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
This should really be an essay, since it's basically vilifying everyone at the other end of the political spectrum; characterising them as slippery, disingenuous and vindictive. Why on earth is it so hard for people here to accept that liberals are capable of honest discussion? Underscoreb 18:44, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- Because we can't recall ever seeing any. Perhaps you'd like to be the first to destroy my preconceptions? --Ed Poor Talk 18:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Seriously. Half of these are not even credited to any source. Its particularly ironic that one of the points is "Unjustified expertise" with no citation. Plus liberals just see the way we should solve problems differently... we are people too (and good ones at that too!). --Snotbowst 15:09, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
They should just delete this page all together. It's just lies. Dave07 19:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)
Removing 'sigh' entry
It would appear I cant so can someone else? AdenJ 01:02, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Point number 39
This entire article is somewhat hyperbolic. Having this point is somewhat hypocritical?
The contradictions I see here are the same contradictions the Liberal left display when they attack the conservative right. Partisans have no idea of how foolish they look to the rest of us. LChriosa 14:12, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
I think the shame point is a bit ridiculous. Heck, shame is a theme in Christianity -- Adam and Eve felt shame for being naked. I don't think God is a liberal.JPohl 12:41, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
- Can someone remove this point? It doesn't look like there are any objects.JPohl 10:53, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
Point No. 8
Global warming is a wacky liberal theory? As if thermometers have liberal ideologies? Heavens. CogitoErgoSum 12:19, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
"32. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness".
I was told specifically by a very conservative person, that quantifying things only make things worse. Care to explain? o.O Make me a sysop! Nate my opinion matters? 10:01, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I understand that this is a conservative website and that we may not like liberals a whole lot, but we accuse liberals "bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views" when we are doing the same to them. This page is proof. We sit here and say all of these great things about ourselves and we just leave the liberals to eat dirt. Here's my evidence:
- concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them
- calling conservative free speech "hate" speech
- claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false
Really? Is this how we should be acting? If us conservatives really want to be the best group, we shouldn't insult other groups just because they're liberal and such. Now, I'm not saying we should accept their viewpoints, but we should be a little less...harsh...in our evaluation of liberals. Even though liberals have a style we don't agree with, we aren't any different. So, I think a revision of this page should be done in order to reduce the harshness. We should also do a revision on Conservative style and maybe mention some of the things we tend to have problems with. --Zerlock
- I fail to see how the points you listed refer to Conservapedia and its users. Also, how can you characterize all conservatives with a style list? Although some of us (myself quite included) may have characteristic problems, we're not homogeneous. Also, those entries are cogent with the past behavior of liberals, that's why they're on the list. JakeW
- Jake, you seem to be confused. This is a list of liberal traits, not conservative ones, so it doesn't at all relate to our users or contributors. --₮K/Talk! 03:12, 30 December 2008 (EST)
- Perhaps I should have indented my previous comment, but I was responding to Zerlock. JakeW
- Jake, don't assume liberals are homogeneous either, I could make a list compiling of isolated conservative events that have no represention of the whole, but I dont because I know that would be wrong. Ditto for liberals, some of us are all the things in this article, but the majority are nothing like it. --Unlikelyconvert 14:02, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
why does this page mention Isaac Newton? What does he have to do with Liberal Style? His mention seems useless to me.
- As you read and learn, that won't seem as useless a mention as it does now. ;-) Perhaps more contributions and less negativity, would be more important now? --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:08, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
Liberals promoting liberalism
I've been looking at liberal creep as opposed to Conservapedia's Law and have realised that it says a lot about how the two different groups promote their beliefs. Conservatives on the one hand do constructive things to promote conservatism, such as adding to the language, while liberals rely on doing negative things like distorting facts, and even when they do add to the language it is only a distortion of a conservative word or an attempt to get rid of a conservative word altogether. I don't believe that this has been specifically addressed on this page, but can't add it myself as I can't edit it. If anyone who does have editing rights agrees with me would you like to add it? Thanks, :) --JimMac 09:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
SamHB, your footnote did not support your contention
Your footnote in the liberal style article did not support your contention. I did not remove material in a comment thread in order to win an argument.
Here is the material I deleted from your talk page:
"I got TAR blocked for you. It is not big deal to TAR since he is not coming back.
Anytime you want to thank me for getting TAR blocked, I will of course graciously accept the thanks. :)".
I did send an email to Andy about this matter and put a comment on his talk page which I think helped cause TAR to be blocked. Your efforts to get TAR blocked were ineffectual and I felt sorry for you.
Second, I have never lost an argument to a liberal at CP and it is not due to my debating prowess, but it is instead due to the utter weakness of liberalism.Conservative (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (EDT)
- Actually, TAR blocked himself. It's in the block log. I did not attempt to get TAR blocked; I considered such a thing to be a hopeless cause, and I was quite surprised when he blocked himself. Though it is probably at your urging that Andy revoked his block rights, and I thank you for that.
- Although I am not a liberal, you lose arguments to me all the time.
- SamHB (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
If the shoe fits...
It appears that these "style" point are defined too broadly. So much so that people who are definitely not liberals (e.g. Donald Trump) display this "style".
The article is sorely lacking in examples of the indicated behavior. So much so that much of the page looks like Liberal whining, of the sort that one might hear from a nine-year-old who has been told to clean up his room. It might be beneficial to go through all the points and find examples supporting the behavior. (Something nine-year-olds generally can't do in an articulate manner.) For each one, we could probably find an example from a liberal and one from a conservative.
- SamHB, you said above, "...I am not a liberal...".
- I then asked you, "If the U.S. presidential election were held today, would you vote for Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Cruz or John Kasich?"
- There must be a reason why you are not willing to publicly put on one of the five shoes above (Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Cruz or John Kasich) in a hypothetical election. If the Clinton or Sanders shoe fits best for you in terms of the five choices given above, then....
- It sure does appear that you have an "unfree state" mentality. At the very least. you could have picked the conservative/moderate Kasich.