nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
11,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 114:
Line 114: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Main Page/archive36 (view source)
Revision as of 04:24, December 14, 2007
, 04:24, December 14, 2007more
==Fujimori==
==Fujimori==
I'm confused - in the past have Peruvian <i>sitting</i> heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office? Or is the story that, for example, <i>Bolivian</i> ex-heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office, but never a Peruvian? How about Mongolian PM's? Or Japanese? This is the first time it's happened in Peru, right? What is the news story - the 'first time' bit, or the rest of it? I'm not sure what purpose the "first time" has in the sentence? [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 20:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I'm confused - in the past have Peruvian <i>sitting</i> heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office? Or is the story that, for example, <i>Bolivian</i> ex-heads of state been tried for actions committed while in office, but never a Peruvian? How about Mongolian PM's? Or Japanese? This is the first time it's happened in Peru, right? What is the news story - the 'first time' bit, or the rest of it? I'm not sure what purpose the "first time" has in the sentence? [[User:Reasonableperson|Reasonableperson]] 20:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Discussion on the nature of the word 'Liberal'==
The truth is that all members here are Liberal; You all support freedom of speech, democracy, a free press, equal treatment by the law etc. etc.
Why do you therefore insist on using Liberal in a derogative manner? Is it not a rather childish act to constantly slate and insult what is in reality the triumphant political theory? (IE, Liberalism)
We are all friends, regardless on our positions on how much extra freedom we believe every individual deserves. [[User:JosiahB|JosiahB]] 10:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:Hold on, neighbor. A ''conservative'' support equal treatment under the law. A ''liberal''--at least in the [[United States]]--supports ''special'' treatment for artificially defined classes of ''victims''.
:A ''conservative'' supports freedom of speech. A ''liberal'' calls for the ''suppression'' of speech by those who disagree with him.
:A ''conservative'' supports a truly free press, with no barriers to entry. A ''liberal'' wants to ''erect'' (or I should say re-erect) barriers to entry and get back to the days when they had the monopoly in deciding what "news" was "fit to print," to paraphrase Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Junior. (For those of you in [[Rio Linda]], [[California]], he's the publisher of ''[[The New York Times]]''.)
:Now maybe I quarrel with just one word: [[democracy]]. I don't know any pure democracy except for [[Switzerland]]. The [[United States]] is a republic, not a democracy. The [[United Kingdom]] is a constitutional [[monarchy]] that tends to govern itself under (mostly) republican principles, and most members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] are republics, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:59, 30 November 2007 (EST)
::Terry, he was using the word ''liberal'' in the old-fashioned sense of, e.g., a [[liberal arts]] college. Perhaps he was unaware that the term now means "leftist" '''and''' that left wing in the US is now against what classical liberalism was for?
::Josiah, it's not an [[insult]] to point out the truth. Today's liberals have betrayed the gains of the past. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:26, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:::The definition of liberal only changed in America. In Australia out equivilent of the republican party is the Liberal Party. [[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)
== Saddening to Read ==
I will admit, when I first found this website I thought it was hilarious. I still do, to a certain extent, find it amusing, but as I kept reading, I was astounded and saddened by how close-minded people can be. No matter how you define your purpose, this encyclopedia is overwhelmingly biased. I will not go into detail on this subject or on my opinions, but I will only say that this web site does NOT reflect the views of most Christians and Republicans. While reading this, I honestly felt almost ashamed to call myself American Christian. I am writing this in the hopes that a non-American or non-Christian might understand that not all of us are like the people who write Conservapedia. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Tylerr395|Tylerr395]] [[User talk:Tylerr395|(talk)]]</small>
:The purpose is not to reflect the majority but to provide trustworthy information. Rationality is better than emotionalism. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:23, 1 December 2007 (EST)
:While we do not try to represent the views of a majority, we are closer to the views of a majority of Americans than [[Wikipedia]] is. [[Wikipedia]] is six times more [[liberal]] than the [[American]] public. See [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. We remove that [[liberal bias]] here, and if you visit here with an open mind then you will benefit from this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::While you should keep in mind that the six-times figure is based on raw data of a self=selected sample of Wikipedia editors. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:::Of course no one said the views of the majority of Americans are correct. Infact I would sugest, as an Australian, that more and more of the world disagrees with the majority of Americans. If the USA didn't have such a massive army it would have little influence on world politics. Soon when America stumbles see how few countries and their people are there to catch it. Also I thought this was a bit of a laugh. The laughter has been replaced with a queazy feeling in my stomach. You people really need to get out and see what the rest of the West has to offer.[[User:Monkey998|Monkey998]] 23:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::: I've not noticed any evidence that disagreement with America is growing overall (although perhaps over particular issues). America's influence is not just due to its army, but also its economic strength. So what you are really saying is the self-obvious ''if America wasn't so big, it wouldn't have as much influence''! Duh! But I agree that Americans can be rather ignorant of the rest of the world. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:17, 10 December 2007 (EST)
:::::What a coincidence. The was an article on the love-hate relationship of Australia with the US in today's SMH [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/how-we-love--and-hate--americans/2007/12/09/1197135289420.html]. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
:::: The "hate" of [[America]] in Western countries is mostly a hatred of [[Christianity]] and [[conservative]] values. It's deceptively represented as a dislike of [[America]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::::: Mr. Schlafly, perhaps we should examine the motives behind this hatred. Why would anyone hate Someone Who loves them? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::::::To be honest, much of Europe is, fortunately, Christian, either Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. I'd say that there are more atheists in America than in Europe. You must concede that the current U.S. President is the reason for much of the less-than-friendly sentiments towards the US in Europe. Rightly or wrongly, that is debatable. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 11:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::::::And when I talk of the current U.S. President, I'm not referring to his religious and conservative beliefs, but to some of his decisions in Foreign matters. Whether the Iraq war is a good decision or not, it wasn't warmly welcomed in Europe. Let me add that many leaders in Europe are expression of Christian and/or Conservative Parties, the most eminent being Sarkozy in France and Merkel in Germany. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 11:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Andy,
We hate You (And you specifically, not Americans) We hate the religious Right and what it stands for, yes. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 09:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)
:Come off it, man. Don't be hatin'! He has a right to his opinions, no matter how misguided people think they are. I think you're assuming Conservapedia has more pull in the world than it actually does.[[User:ABN|ABN]] 10:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)
::Cicero's comments are ironically proof that militance is visible on both sides of the political spectrum. I think this aggression between left and right is more than just principles, but is more about the raw and naked exercise of power. When you have a man who believes he is absolutely right over everybody else, you have trouble, regardless of his political standpoint. [[User:ABN|ABN]] 10:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)
:::I would never demand he not have his opinions. In fact, I don't hate conservatism, that was the heat of the moment when I was incredibly frustrated with Mr. Schlafy; that anger is passed. Unfortunately, despite all this it will only be a matter of time until I am banned, despite really looking forward to writing some non-partisan historic articles. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 15:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)