From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1|Archive 2 |Archive 3|Archive 4


Differences between liberals and democrats

These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

Support for gun control (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

Political correctness (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

Environmentalism (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

Disarmament treaties (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World. (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin

Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: 1. The article's definition of a liberal "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

2. list of so called political positions and practices The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

3. picture The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

4. Liberals in north america today Again, no facts here. the following claims are made:

Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

  • Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]
  • Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --Trekdude31 21:34, 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.--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. TomUp 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)
Well, TrekDude’s right. 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 --Trekdude31 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--ForeverPeace
Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--Andy Schlafly 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --ForeverPeace

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --Quetzalcoatl 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Exactly.TomUp 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)


Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?JPohl 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. Harbinger 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. Apr28 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -Shakleton 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)
Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)
You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -Shakleton 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.

NebraskaG 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside you fear us by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. Karajou 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.

NebraskaG 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

Additional Liberal Organizations

Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpatt (talk)

Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --Jareddr 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --Jareddr 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --Jareddr 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --Jareddr 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--jp 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it here! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --Jareddr 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--jp 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --Jareddr 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--jp 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Founding Fathers were liberal

For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... Jros83 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--Andy Schlafly 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

List at top

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? PCarson 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

See Also

Would like to add Liberal education. --50 star flag.png jp 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our test for open-mindedness.--Andy Schlafly 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Clean up article

Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located here. Thank you.--JasonM 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. HelpJazz 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Recent changes

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. HelpJazz 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). HelpJazz 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps the word you're looking for is tautology? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). Underscoreb 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) HelpJazz 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
That better? Philip J. Rayment 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) HelpJazz 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama: Professor?

Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)

  • Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.[1] He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.[2] He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.[3] Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. [4] The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.[5]
  • "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.[7] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.
  • University of Chicago's Statement Regarding Barack Obama[6] states: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
  • Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [8]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama) be changed to remove Obama's name.


The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. Conservatores 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]

You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.

Liberal Arts

I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --KevinS 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Good suggestion. I removed them.--aschlafly 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely correct definition...but :-)

A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.

This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between these 19th century Christian liberals and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as Karl Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach and their 20th century couterparts Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin? --RickD 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--Andy Schlafly 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?
Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. Karajou 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. SamuelC 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --EvanW 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised fellow-travellers of overt Communists. Bugler 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be fellow-travellers, thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the Kingdom of God. Reinhold Niebuhr is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive fellow-travellers notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --RickD 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about God, Jesus, or Scripture is unknown) like Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama appear to more into Liberal Fascism than fellow-travellers. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --RickD 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

The philosophy of Liberalism

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --Jpatt 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)
That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.
No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of deceit. Apr28 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)
Today liberals support taxpayer-funded abortion and demand censorship of classroom prayer, plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The deceit is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

Free Market

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. NotALiberal 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)


The text currently reads There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing. I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' MauriceB 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

If you want anyone to take you seriously...

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Yorpa 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for liberal namecalling. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). DanieleGiusto 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Problems With the Article

a liberal is merely someone who craves attention
Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says some argue rather than most or a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. Ululator 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--CPalmer 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)
(edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.
As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--Andy Schlafly 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.Ululator 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? Ululator 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)


The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

  • No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. AddisonDM 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? JoshJGordon 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Question about the article

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. JamesY 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of Faith. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --₮K/Admin/Talk 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? ShmuelB 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This is completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
As an example of the illogical view of atheists, they deny the existence of Hell. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmmaAm (talk)

Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Texico11 (talk)

Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--Jpatt 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
Texico11, you find no logical flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.
Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--Andy Schlafly 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--Texico11 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

First few sentences

I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - Trajork 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. NP 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - Trajork 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)
You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.
On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--Andy Schlafly 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":

  • An Islamic terrorist
  • a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
  • A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
  • An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
  • J Edgar Hoover
  • A member of the Flat Earth Society
  • A member of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Adolf Hitler
  • Robert Mugabe
  • General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? Cantaloupe 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. JacobB 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. Cantaloupe 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar. While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. JacobB 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)

My challenge to you is to go to the articles Adolf Hitler, Ku Klux Klan and terrorist and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. Cantaloupe 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.JacobB 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)
Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.
Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --Ed Poor Talk 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)
As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --EvanW 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)
That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --Ed Poor Talk 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--Andy Schlafly 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards in a different way than liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do not reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --EvanW 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)
Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. Liberals, in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I just found an interesting article about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism is a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --EvanW 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [9] --Ed Poor Talk 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their fellow travelers said they were for "peace", while the peace movement of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral nuclear disarmament and getting the US out of Vietnam. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.
We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on global warming; they don't care about science but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to deviant sexual practices as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)
You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --Ed Poor Talk 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)
That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone on the left of the political spectrum. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --EvanW 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)
Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)
I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define theological liberalism; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --EvanW 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

First few sentences (Edit Break)

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools: Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism Traits: Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect.... It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other. On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible. --Double Edge 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general). --Double Edge 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

This entry defines a liberal today. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-abortion liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.
Liberals support Barack Obama, so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--Andy Schlafly 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them? You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness. --Double Edge 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. JacobB(admin)Shout out! 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in Liberal denial. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --ReligiousRight 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated. --Double Edge 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their liberal trick of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--Andy Schlafly 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of Liberal traits and Liberal style. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic Liberal deceit. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called Liberal fairness. --ReligiousRight 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--Manhattan
Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? Karajou 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--Manhattan
No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. Karajou 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--Manhattan
Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --NateSmall 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly intellectual or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal. --Double Edge 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.
Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--Manhattan


Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that anybody, including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ - Jeff W. LauttamusDiscussion 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism?

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that America is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our liberals are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! Tzoran Talk 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! Tzoran Talk 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative?

Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --Houshalter 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined JoshJGordon 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Narrowly US-Oriented Article

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an American encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? Tyler Zoran Talk 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Introductory remarks

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, Phiwum 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Child porn?

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? Phiwum 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. Karajou 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Also, the ACLU has a long reputation for defending child pornography. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: even if I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and even if what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
Much thanks. Phiwum 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been Google it. Karajou 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) Phiwum 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only benefits people seeking to deal in child pornography. Tyler Zoran Talk 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the ACLU's treatment of it. I know it's in the pornography article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen here. Does that make more sense? Tyler Zoran Talk 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? Phiwum 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. JoshJGordon 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

A few minor things

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.JoshJGordon 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

:And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''

The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! TrevS 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. JoshJGordon 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.
I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. JoshJGordon 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an American encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. JoshJGordon 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
That would be super, Josh!
I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Classical liberalism

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --Ed Poor Talk 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

Liberal corporations section proposal

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)
Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.
It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--Andy Schlafly 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country?

If this country was not founded on christianity? --MahmoudAlzwarii 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Liberals in Europe

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, one of the few great democratic Presidents, firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced Keynesian economics and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. conservative 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? JacobD 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Look how fast the ex-President and businessman Calvin Coolidge licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: conservative 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Nazis and pedarists

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. User:DavidMilton

headline reversion

Re: this edit I don't think its fair to say all liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? MaxFletcher 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech.

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. Ayzmo 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? MachinaSapiens 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the Question evolution! campaign is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. Conservative 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

Disarmament treaties

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --GeorgeLi 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

"the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..."

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. JeffreyB 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

More Biased than Wikipedia

I'm a Conservative, and yet I think this is far more biased than anything I've EVER read on Wikipedia. They at least don't make sweeping generalizations that make entire groups seem like dirt

maybe someday there will be a Wikia written from a Conservative point of view without all the extra stuff....though perhaps you can help create one as a counterpoint to CP. --DavidS 15:39, 20 March 2013 (EDT)


The two sentences:

  • Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
  • Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq

mean the same thing. Please remove one of it.--JoeyJ 11:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)

Hilary Clinton saying she "believes in white supremacy"

Here's the entire quote:

"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Mrs. Clinton said, according to the Long Island newspaper. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'" The senator added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?' ... I won't stand for it."

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton was not expressing her own views on white supremacy, but outlining a thought experiment. To say otherwise is quote-mining, and makes me wonder about the good faith of the editor involved. SaulJ 13:22, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Here's the [[10]]. She quite clearly isn't talking about her own views. JohnSelway 20:56, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

It's not going into the article. She is not advocating white supremacy. Conservative 22:01, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

I permanently banned the editor responsible for this. I think some of his edits were intentionally wrong. Conservative 01:13, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

A liberal's point of view on this page

This is the absolute worst thing I've read on this wiki. I can at least understand your bias, and I do agree with some supposedly. "conservative" views including being against PC culture and the fact that radical Islamic terrorists are radical Islamic terrorists. But this page is horrible. I'm not one to be offended easily but I find stuff like this borderline offensive. You guys are generalizing all of us into one distinct category and I'm sure not one liberal believes in everything you guys say we all do. Also fascism is an inherently rightist ideology, and I love it how people say we're all fascists; I can at least understand you guys calling us communists as they are leftists. And we don't believe in slavery either. I doubt anyone does at this point, at least outside of poor African states and Middle Eastern theocracies. I won't mention everything wrong about this page as there is so much it would take me hours to.

Regarding fascism, you're wrong about that - fascism is not a "rightist" ideology, but like Communism, is on the Left. It's for the best at this point that the main article is locked against editing in order to prevent any edit warring anyway.
P.S. Please make sure to sign your posts when you comment in talk sections. Northwest (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
The actions taken by the "antifa" protestors and other liberals who try to silence those who disagree with them strongly resemble fascism. They think the world will be a better place if they can get rid of those who disagree with them. Also, socialism and an expansive government is an inherent part of fascism, which really is a militaristic/nationalistic version of socialism. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Since words have no meaning - a basic liberal tenet - I don't understand why liberals are so emotionally attached to the word 'liberal'. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 12:43, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Two points: The left does practice forced labor. See: Atheism and forced labor 2) I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views. The reason why liberals cry "I'm offended" so frequently is that they cannot or will not form legitimate arguments. In short, they are incompetent/dishonest.Conservative (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Pardon me for being offended that you paint me as supporting genocide and murder. Nobs, it's true that words have no inherent meaning - but this doesn't mean that they have no meaning at all. No inherent meaning means that the marks we put on paper don't have meaning in and of themselves. If they did, you and I would be able to read Japanese without problem. It's the configurations that we put those marks in and the things we're taught in life that give the marks meaning. It is also important to note that not all words mean the same things to the same people. In this sense, words have no meaning as well. For instance, you would say the verb 'revise' means 'to clean up and make better', like revisions to a paper. To me, the verb 'revise' means 'to study'. These are differences between American and British English. Revise has no meaning per se, but the culture we come from gives the words meaning. Make sense? Even the phrase 'per se' there probably has different meanings to you and I.
Conservative. Mate, I understand that you don't care whether or not I'm offended. That's your prerogative. But do understand that your article there isn't the truth. Liberals don't support paedophilia. We don't support murder. We don't support genocide. I could go on and on about the things we don't support that your article claims we do. For the sake of the truth, it's time to clean this article up. Vive Liberté! 14:16, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
I agree completely. For example, I just discovered "humanitarian" to Barack Obama means "behead Christians" to me, or "responsibility to protect civilians" to Hillary Clinton means "arm and equip ISIS" to everybody else. That's what this article attempts to do, clarify meanings. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:54, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Regarding the murder/genocide part, liberals support abortion, which is a form of murder and genocide because the unborn babies truly are human beings (a scientific fact liberals deny and replace with pseudoscience). Abortion has murdered about 60 million people since 1973 in the U.S. alone. Regarding pedophilia, it's a good thing that many liberals don't support it yet. However, if we were speaking in the 1970s, most liberals would say they opposed homosexual behavior and even abortion. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Vive Liberté!, it is not MY article although I contributed to it in the past. I reviewed that article and made improvements as I am all for accuracy, footnoting, etc. Conservative (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I mentioned you there because of your "I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your[sic] offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views." comment. Vive Liberté! 18:06, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
I didn't review the article before I made my commentary. After reviewing the article, I made some improvements. Conservative (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

This article

.. Is abysmal in every sense of the word. The more I poke around here and edit and such, the more I realise that Conservapaedia isn't an encyclopaedia qua encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopaedia qua propaganda machine. I propose a total rework of this article. I'll do it if no one else will. I understand that you all have conservative values, I do, but straw manning everything left of you is blatant deceit. You don't even have to be on my half of the political spectrum to see that 'Liberals support murder' is wrong. Please, it's time to clean up your work. It's very clearly wrong. Vive Liberté! 08:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Oh, and by the way Karajou, the last edit was on 30 April, from nobs. There hasn't been an edit in over a week. That's hardly an edit war. Vive Liberté! 09:02, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
And I will prevent one. Viva real liberty. Karajou (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Thank you

For at least making an effort, Conservative, to revise this article. It's definitely a start. Vive Liberté! 16:23, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

.. Never mind - we're back to where we started. Vive Liberté! 16:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Please elaborate. Conservative (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
The article has changed. We are not back to where we started. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (EDT)


You are not showing me any poll showing me that the majority of modern liberals like the eugenics aspects of abortion. That is why I moved it to some liberals. Conservative (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Here's one: 90% of people with an unborn baby with Down Syndrome will commit an abortion. In Denmark, that number is 98%, and it is in the 90s in other countries. In Iceland, that number is 100%. Liberals (or anyone, for that matter) are not going to call it eugenics. But read the article Eugenics, and the definition is very similar to what we see going on today. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
I should be more specific. Genocide is wiping out a race of people. There is a difference between abortion to prevent people with birth defects and genocide. Also, I am not sure what the difference is between European liberals and abortion/birth defects and American liberals and abortion/birth defects. The other issue is that some European nations are more liberal than others. Denmark/Iceland for example are two of the most irreligious European nations. There is a difference between Hungary for example and Denmark which is less religious. Also, in Italy about 70% of doctors refuse to do abortions and abortion has restriction and can't be done after 90 days. There is a difference between Denmark and Italy.
After all is said and done, you can't use an overly broad paint stroke. I just am asking for a higher degree of accuracy that was in the article before.
Also, not all liberals are communists. There is a difference between Denmark/Sweden and the Soviet Union/China for example. Conservative (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
European liberals are liberals nonetheless, and at least when referring to eugenics, I think it's clear that liberals support it (unless you can show me that many of them oppose aborting babies with Down Syndrome). BTW, Hungary is actually a conservative nation. The post-communist nations in Eastern Europe have shifted strongly to the Right. Also, you can define the unborn as "a race of people" (though not in the ethnic sense, but they are a type of people and a lot of them have been murdered). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
Exactly. The unborn are not a race of people. Not all abortion is genocidal. 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. --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.

Liberalism is bad. But not everything that is bad is automatically liberal. Political science done in a valid way recognizes there is spectrum of political beliefs from right to left. It is cartoonish and a reflection of binary/limited thinking to think that the words liberalism and bad are synonymous. Conservative (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I have to strongly disagree with you here. Obviously, Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich, but many of the principles of their ideologies are the same. Communist ideology is strongly for labor and against business. They strongly oppose religion and support state atheism. They oppose the family and think children should be wards of the government. The same principles of liberalism.
Fascism is socialist, just a more militaristic and nationalistic version of it. Franco was conservative, but Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. They also practiced gun control, and Hitler supported animal rights and environmentalism.
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. --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. 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. --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 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."[11] 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.[12] 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.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. 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. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 23:17, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Go ahead. Makes sense. Obama is largely yesterday's news. So is Hillary Clinton. 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. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 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. Conservative (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I started the article.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. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 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). Conservative (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberalism and communism

It might be a good idea to consider adding this to the article: the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (EDT)


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.--Nathan (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2017 (EDT)

I can see why. --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. --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. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:44, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
True. --Jackin the box (talk) 15:46, April 18, 2022 (EDT)