Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,594
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 660:
Line 660: + +
→Protection: some comments
::That is extremely misleading. I'm sure ''liberal'' opposition to the foreign policy is not because ''liberals'' are against advocating human rights and democracy but for other reasons. The present version is not very encyclopedic but, hey, block the page so no one can do an encyclopedic edit.
::That is extremely misleading. I'm sure ''liberal'' opposition to the foreign policy is not because ''liberals'' are against advocating human rights and democracy but for other reasons. The present version is not very encyclopedic but, hey, block the page so no one can do an encyclopedic edit.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Upon further review, we see oppostiion to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy really is not limited to just recent years; we have more less successfully defined American Liberalism as equivalent to European Socialism, and in the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] we have only just began to show [[Marxism]] stands in direct opposition to universally recognized [[human rights]]. Then in reviewing US hisotry, likewise we see Liberals '''actively''' opposed human rights and democracy for the peoples of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and the peoples of South Vietnam and Camobodia in the 1960s and 70s. So there is ample evidence to support the claim. And various so-called "liberal" editors here in Conservapedia openly state women were better off without the vote under Iraqi fascism than being supported by the United States in a Constitutional democracy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)