SkipCaptcha
906
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + Line 659:
Line 660: − − == Authoritarianism is not a synonym for liberalism. Not all authoritarian drill instuctors are liberals for example == − − Authoritarianism is not a synonym for liberalism. Not all very authoritarian drill instructors are liberals for example, − − Some conservative principals in schools can be authoritarian. So authoritarianism is not synonymous with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:40, 8 May 2017 (EDT) Line 675:
Line 670: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − == Democrat does not equal liberal. Historically, many Democrats have not been liberals. Not all American slave owners were liberal. George Washington owned slaves. ==+ + + − Democrat does not equal liberal. Historically, many Democrats have not been liberals. Not all American slave owners were liberal. George Washington owned slaves. Was George Washington an uber liberal? + − I removed the material about liberals advocating slavery. Please have some historical context like the French Revolution advocating the equality of man, etc. etc. I realize that people can be contradictory and Thomas Jefferson espoused some [[Age of Enlightenment]] ideas, but also owned slaves. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:14, 8 May 2017 (EDT)+ − === Stop pretending we are living in the 1800s or early 1900s. Stop pretending that current Democrats are largely members of the Klu Klux Klan. Make historical distinctions === − Stop pretending we are living in the 1800s or early 1900s. Stop pretending that current Democrats are largely members of the Klu Klux Klan.+ − Please make historical distinctions. I fixed the article so that historical distinctions are made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])+ + − == King George III was not a liberal. Opposite of French Revolution. Attila the Hun was born before liberalism was an ideology. Liberalism is bad but not a synonym of bad ==+ − King George III was not a liberal. He no doubt believed in the divine right of kings which is opposite of the French Revolution. There are plenty of overly authoritarian modern liberals. The are plenty of corrupt liberals. But just because King George III was authoritarian and corrupt, does not mean he was a liberal. The British could argue that the high taxes on the American colonies were a result of the Brits paying for the [[French and Indian War]], but that is a whole other discussion. The bottom line is that not all historical figures who opposed the United States are necessarily liberals. + − Attila the Hun was born before liberalism was an ideology. Let's stop pretending that liberalism is not a specific political ideology that arose in a specific period of time. Was Cain of Cain and Abel fame a liberal? Liberalism is bad but not a synonym for the word bad. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:30, 8 May 2017 (EDT)+ + +
→All liberals are secular?: True
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:::You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::::Well, TrekDude’s right. [[User:Eger|Eger]] ([[User talk:Eger|talk]]) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (EST)
This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)
This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Exactly. The unborn are not a race of people. Not all abortion is genocidal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
::::Exactly. The unborn are not a race of people. Not all abortion is genocidal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::No, the unborn ''are a group of people.'' Genocide is still genocide if the people in question are unborn, homosexual, or Jews. It doesn't have to be ethnic. Genocide can still be included here. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::No, the unborn ''are a group of people.'' Genocide is still genocide if the people in question are unborn, homosexual, or Jews. It doesn't have to be ethnic. Genocide can still be included here. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
== Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism ==
== Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism ==
:We can see the fascist side of liberalism today, with the [[antifa]] movement rioting and trying to silence conservatives.
:We can see the fascist side of liberalism today, with the [[antifa]] movement rioting and trying to silence conservatives.
:These people may not be called liberals by the mainstream (and in some ways they differ), but clear similarities exist. They should definitely be re-added. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
:These people may not be called liberals by the mainstream (and in some ways they differ), but clear similarities exist. They should definitely be re-added. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
::Silencing opposing views is common throughout history. In the early colonies, there was not religious freedom at first. If you were a religion other than what that particular colony was, you faced discrimination.
::And yes I agree with you that Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich. That is why liberalism is separate from communism/fascism. In short, there is a political spectrum. I know you are aware of this matter. Let's not waste time debating the obvious. In the entire world during the 20th/21st centuries, there is not a single encyclopedia you could buy or find in a library that confused liberalism with Nazism/communism.
::Liberalism is bad. We agree on this matter. There is no point in grasping at straws in order to try to make liberalism worse. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::You're missing my point. Liberalism and fascism/communism are the same in many ways (atheism, labor, one-world government, anti-family, government control in the lives of people for communism; big government, animal "rights," environmentalism, gun control, socialism with the Nazis). These are liberals, but more extreme versions of them. They are liberals nonetheless. Also, let's not make library book the final authority, as liberals obviously don't want to call nazism and communism liberalism. Let's look at their policies and ''not'' what the mainstream thinks of them. Their policies were left-wing. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
::::The secular left is made up of atheists/agnostics. The Soviet Union and communism is militant atheism. Not agnosticism or "militant agnosticism".
::::Communism was not well known for animal rights. When I think of the Soviet Union or Chinese communism or the Russians, animal rights activism does not spring to mind.
::::The environmental record for communism is very poor compared to liberalism. For example, please read the article [http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/ If You Think Communism Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment]. Germany is fairly liberal, has a high standard of living, produces many things and does a lot of exporting. But its record in terms of the environment is far better than most, if not all, communist countries.
::::This may be correct and I have not thoroughly researched it, "The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights."[http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/nazi_ecology.htm] But conservation is different from environmentalism so I am not sure how fair it is to say that Nazism practiced environmentalism in terms of its ideology. See: [[Conservation vs. environmentalism]] The bottom line though is you have to explain things. Not just bury them in footnotes with a few words. You will destroy any shred of credibility the article has if you do this. I did clean up some ridiculous claims like Attila the Hun being a liberal.
::::European social democracies which are liberal are different from communist countries. People can do open air preaching in many/all liberal countries in Europe. You cannot do that in communist countries.
::::There is a political spectrum.
::::You can certainly have a section in the article on the more extreme liberals and clearly mark it as such, but be sure to cite legitimate examples and clearly explain it. Specifically, clearly explain things and don't bury them in the footnotes. Don't just have two words if people are not commonly aware of a matter. Not everyone who reads the article is a hard core conservative or is very informed about politics. For example, Anita Dunn, who was Obama's debate coach and who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009, named Mao as her favorite political philosopher.[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/10/17/obama-debate-advisor-anita-dunn-mao/] That is a legitimate point to make as far as far left liberals.
::::And let's do use the entire world's libraries for decades and decades and decades and use the world's printed encyclopedias and not pretend they don't exist for the sake of ideological fantasizing. Liberalism is not Nazism or communism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I updated the article and documented the communists moving closer to capitalism and the American liberals being more sympathetic to communism. I also created a [[liberal intolerance]] section of the article and near the lead of the article I put how liberals were limiting free speech. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:51, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
==Update photo==
Let's update the photo from Obama to [[Elizabeth Warren]]. This will help keep the article fresh and timely. Every time a new piece of idiocy comes out of her mouth, we'll something to add explaining how she's wrong and keep the page current. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 23:17, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
:Go ahead. Makes sense. Obama is largely yesterday's news. So is Hillary Clinton. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
::Good. I'll try to find a picture of her with a booger hanging out of her nose. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 23:44, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
== Liberal intolerance article greatly needs expansion - especially in light of recent events ==
The [[liberal intolerance]] article greatly needs to be expanded - especially in light of things that have happened since Trump appeared as a political candidate and was elected (violent demonstrations, violence used to prevent speakers on campuses, etc. etc.). Right now, the [[liberal intolerance]] article is merely one sentence.
If the [[Liberal intolerance]] article was expanded, the [[liberal]] article could have a section on liberal intolerance.
The liberal article is a popular article. But it turned into a mess and I cleaned it up as I indicated on the talk page.
The liberal article could be much better. Modern liberalism is often intolerant of conservatives/conservatism. The way the [[liberal]] article was trying to make this point was poorly done. Slapping the word Stalinism, etc. on the article doesn't cut the mustard. A section on liberal intolerance with a link to a well-supported article would cut the mustard. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:I started the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::In that article what's needed is not just a laundry list of instances, but an in depth anaylsis as to what basic beliefs liberals hold that they feel justify censoring, silencing, intimidating, harassing, lawbreaking, using acts of violence up to and including extermination againsts persons they deem non-liberal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 16:34, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::RobS, Go for it!!!! It could be a very informative and popular article if it was done right. If it was helpful to readers, you could have a very small section of examples which gave a link to a separate article giving a laundry list such as [[Examples of liberal intolerance]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
== Liberalism and communism ==
It might be a good idea to consider adding this to the article: [http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/09/california-may-allow-communists-work-openly-state-government/ the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
== Vandalism ==
I checked the "difference" on that last attempt of vandalism by Click Your Heels, even though I don't usually, and it may have been one of the funnier vandalisms here, if a bit poorly attempted.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:28, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1350635&oldid=1350476 I can see why]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
References needed for quotes.
== All liberals are secular? ==
This seems to suggest that all American liberals are secular, which is nonsense. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:27, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
:It's true, God does not require a high IQ to be a believer or Christian. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 15:44, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
::True. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:46, April 18, 2022 (EDT)