Changes

== Wikipedia Citations ==

== Wikipedia Citations ==

== How can we forget the fact that... ==

== 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. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homo          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. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

: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. [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 22:42, 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. [[User:ColemanFrancis|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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 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       ts.  The leading isolationist in the GOP, Pat Buchanan, is routinely called anti-Semitic.  See below for further discussion.  [[User:RobS|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". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 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". [[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 23:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*''Nobody was pro-Ba'athist''

:::*''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.

::::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       t 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]]   

:::::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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::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)  

:::::::::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.

::::::::::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       t 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       m 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. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00

:::::::::::Everything up to ''By contrast'' is kind of true. But our ''liberal friends'' would deny that they argure in favor of       m 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. [[User:Order|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.

::::::::::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. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00

::::::::::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. [[User:Order|Order]] 27 March 15:00

::::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.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::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.  [[User:RobS|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.

:::::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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=66076&oldid=66039][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=next&oldid=67302] of fascism and democracy, fascism is the lesser of two evils.  You've convinced me to reinsert the passage.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::You've said it twice now [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=66076&oldid=66039][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=next&oldid=67302] of       m and democracy,       m is the lesser of two evils.  You've convinced me to reinsert the passage.  [[User:RobS|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)

:::::::The choice wasn't between       m and democracy. In the 80s it was a choice between Iraqi       m 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.

*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.