2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + − ::: No, look at the article on [[Liberal]] how conservapedia defines it. And there you find that liberal is defined as pro-gay, pro trade-union, pro-affirmative action, pro-gender equality, pro-foreign immigration, pro-disarment, anti-militaristic. And he was obviously none of it. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 10:22 (AEST) − ::::Another article that needs improvement, it is after all, a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
→Improvement Proposals
::: I guess you just want to mock this site, don't you. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:00 (AEST)
::: I guess you just want to mock this site, don't you. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:00 (AEST)
::::Let's be clear and unambiguous as to what we are talking about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's be clear and unambiguous as to what we are talking about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Calling a ''10% cap'' a ''quota'' is just plain wrong. They are different things. But since I assume that you know this, I conclude that you just want to slip in some outrageous claims, to make Conservaedia look like a project of a bunch of ignorants. It's called subtle vandalism. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
::Is this the definition, Liberal = good guy, non-liberal = bad guy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::Is this the definition, Liberal = good guy, non-liberal = bad guy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::: No, look at the article on [[Liberal]] how conservapedia defines it. And there you find that liberal is defined as pro-gay, pro trade-union, pro-affirmative action, pro-gender equality, pro-foreign immigration, pro-disarmament, anti-militaristic. And he was obviously none of it. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 10:22 (AEST)
::::Another article that needs improvement, it is after all, a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you suggest to change the definition of liberal, such that it also includes fascist dictators? I am puzzled at your eagerness to cast history of the 3rd Reich in terms of current US politics. Either its just a trap to provoke people to say something stupid, or you are just fairly naive about the nature of third Reich.--[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.
A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.