From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

inherent conjuctures of its fluid reasoning

What does this mean? Boethius

It means whatever you'd like it to mean. RobS 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, just the problem :-[ Boethius
The answer can be found within the emanations from the penumbra. RobS 12:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

people who favor transfers of autonomy and personal responsibility to the government

I do not think that Liberals "favor transfers of autonomy and personal responsibility to the government" -- certainly, no Liberal person would put it this way, and it seems to me an inaccurate characterization. The phrase seems to me a cryptic way of describing things that ought to be described more openly & frankly -- e.g., if this is a refernce to bills such as the Americans with Disabilities act, then the phrase should be "favors government protection of people who, in its view, are victims of discrimination" Boethius

Changing the first definition of liberal

"Liberal is a term used in politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment". Left Wing links to "The term Leftist refers to the Liberal side of the political spectrum". Recursive definitions are bad form. I am updating Liberal to reflect this. JustSaying


The article on ANSWERS is missing its point. It is meant to prove liberal rejection of Bush policy but it argues instead that many liberals reject extreme anti-war positions. User:Order 29 March 9:00 (AEST)

Well I think we may safely expand the defintion beyond (1) the current administration, and (2) American foreign policy. [1] RobS 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)


I unprotected the page. RobS 19:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for unprotecting the page. I was able to tighten up / correct the facet about prayer in public schools. Denk


This sentence,

In the US today, 'liberal' is usually used to mean someone who is generally left-wing in his attitudes

tells us absolutely nothing. "lefty-wing in attitude". This is not the third grade. Please, folks, give us specifics. RobS 14:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism vs licentiousness

The etymology of 'liber' needs to be reworked; it clearly is not going to work. RobS 15:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

1 Peter 2:16

However, 1 Peter 2:16 states, "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

The word that is being translated to 'liberty' here is the Greek word (not Latin) eleutheria[2]. In bibcal use this word has a few meanings[3]

  1. liberty to do or to omit things having no relationship to salvation
  2. fancied liberty (licence, the liberty to do as one pleases)
  3. true liberty is living as we should not as we please

I will also point to other variations of this translation[4]

While this word is translated to 'liberty', so is exousia[5] and anesis[6] and aphesis[7]. These are all different words in Greek and care should be taken to make sure that you are using the word in the correct sense. Later in the passage, there is a clear point of view used with the editorial on licentiousness. --Mtur 15:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

As the citation you provided states, " true liberty is living as we should not as we please", which is precisely the point, and needs to be made clear in mainspace. RobS 16:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
But the word 'liberty' that you are working from with Latin roots has a different meaning. In the context of 1 Peter, this makes sense - to do things that have no relationship to salvation as a cloak of maliciousness "this doesn't affect if I get saved, so I can be nasty and still do it." It isn't talking about the idea of freedom and liberty. --Mtur 16:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The 'liberty' here, whether the Greek or Latin Vulgate, refers to being free from sin, not free to be in bondage to sin again. RobS 16:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Thus, does the passage even have a place in the main article? Or is this a "this word is the same so include it"? Additionaly, there are many translations of this passage that don't use the word 'liberty'. --Mtur 16:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, let's get specific what we are talking about. 'Liber', the Latin root of 'Liberty' and 'Liberal', is translated from early Greek roots. However, there is no change in the meaning from Greek to Latin. The meaning is 'free', hence 'liberty' is analgous to 'freedom', and a 'liberal' can be seen to as a (1) free person, or (2) person who advocates freedom. This contrasts with 'licentiousness', i.e. having a 'license' to commit certain acts which, while not always necessarily illegal under civil law, can be argueed to be morally harmful. In other words, a person who makes the wrong choices is free to engage in licentiousness. This person, however, does not fit the definition of a person who is (1) free, (2) an advocate of freedom. RobS 16:58, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

(outdent) There are several questions here.

  1. What is the reason to include this passage in the article? A number of other translations of the Bible do not use the word 'liberty'?
  2. What is the root of the word Liberty? I can trace it back to liber and Liber - a Roman fertility god. Whatever the case, what does that have to do with the modern meaning of the word 'liberal'?
  3. The passage about "licentiousness" - is this more a commentary on the 1 Peter passage? or is it trying to claim the point of view that those who advocate personal freedom in all forms are licentious (which is about morals - not freedom)?

--Mtur 17:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem goes back to an older version of the intro,
Liberal is a term used in politics to describe someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms[1], as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others ('liber' means freedom in Latin).
This does not describe liberalism, it describes licentiousness. Now, there has always been a secular meaning to 'liber' or 'free', and a spiritual meaning. In the ancient world, a person who enjoyed 'liberty' could mean one of two things, (a) a Christian redeemed from the curse, or (b) a non-slave.
So, who were this secular class of non-free persons, or slaves? They were ususally persons who lost thier liberty because they were either debtors or criminals.
Now this article rightly picks up the discussion in the 18th century were state-funded prisons often replaced the institution of slavery in Western Europe, so the ancient meaning of a non-free person is largely moot at this time, and there was somewhat of a redefinition of terms. However, what was always regarded as non-free, i.e. in bondage to sin and death, still is regarded as such, and what was always regarded as licentious behavior, or one "who favors personal freedom in all its forms", does not change the meaning of licentiousness either.
So what do we conclude? Advocates of licentiousness (more properly 'licency') have tried to hijack the meaning of the term 'freedom' and 'liberty' for about 200 years now. It's an interesting question, who's meaning will prevail, the Biblical or the advocates of licentiousness. RobS 17:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
The current article appears to be talking about the political philosophy - which has little bearing on the biblical or 'licentious' meanings. If these are to be included in the article, it is important to designate them as what they are rather than trying to associate them with the philosophy that sparked the American Revolution. --Mtur 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree somewhat; but somebody opened the etymological can of worms and it probably can't be shut now. And your latest post basically reiterated everything I said above. This really begs a question now, is the perversion of the meaning of the term "freedom", and "free", and "liberty" just accidental stupidity or a concerted effort by the slaves of sin to convince everybody else God's word is meaningless and thier desire to exercire "personal freedom in all its forms" should be regarded as normal and acceptable? RobS 17:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


The lastest version said:

However, 1 Peter 2:16 states, "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." [1] This definition, or understanding of the root 'liber', and the idea of being free, obviously conflicts with a secularized meaning that "favors personal freedom in all its forms", which really is a more apt description of "licentiousness".

How is this relevant to 'Liberalism'? Isn't this kind of quoting the bible just selfserving? Because it doesn't serve the article. User:Order 6 April 10:25 (AEST)

I think we have it properly disclaimed in the article now, that the secular meaning is a perversion from its etymological roots and is really quite the opposite of what the word is intended to convey. RobS 20:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
When the name 'Liberalism' was coined in the 18t century, I assume that the people were sincerly using the Latin word for 'free', because it expressed what they felt. That we might have a different view of what 'free' means, is a different issue. User:Order 6 April 10:45 (AEST)
We discussed this all above. "favors personal freedom in all its forms" is a definition of licentiousness, because obviously a civil regime cannot enforce all prohibitions against human conduct, anal sex for example. While someone many consider this "personal freedom in all its forms", it really is quite the opposite of the root word of "liberty". RobS 21:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Rights of women

Stuff moved from talk pages

uhhhh, 'scuse me Rob, but where exactly have I done anything like that? Please point out the specific exchange between us. --PF Fox 17:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

PF, actually I wasn't specifically refering to you here. RobS 19:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I see nobody else arguing with you in the section you cited as an example: Talk:National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party#Right_Wing. --PF Fox 11:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
That section specifically discusses left v right; further you brought in a dictionary definition that reads, "advocating the greater well-being of the common man"; this is particularly comical, for example, where do opponents of "advocating the greater well-being of man" go to apply for membership? or perhaps you'd like to play some craps with loaded dice. I mean, come on now, let's get real. Here's other discussion of esentially the same nature [8][9][10]
And nowhere in that section have I reponded to your request for a definition of a leftist by "explain(ing) a leftist is a liberal or that "a liberal is a leftist."--PF Fox 12:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. And I am absolutely serious as a heart attack; I will press the issue how so-called advocates of human rights, the "betterment of humanity", and womens sufferage are working overtime to insure Iraqi women loose what few gains have been made since 2003. RobS 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
What gains are those, Rob? The fact is, Iraqi women have LOST a great deal of ground since 2003. Before the invasion, they were able to walk about in public unveiled, look forward to a higher education, and practice professions like medicine unmolested. Now women are afraid to leave their homes without their faces covered, the rise of the shia majority has made the prospect of their daughters attending college highly doubtful, and professional women who insist on continuing to work are being murdered. How do these qualify as "gains?" --PF Fox 12:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
You have well stated the so-called "leftist" viewpoint, my friend; Iraqi women were much better off under the fascists Ba'athists than a liberal Constitutional democracy. Thank you. RobS 12:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't answer my question. You claimed Iraqi women had made "gains." Specifically what "gains" have Iraqi women made? Do you consider the imposition of Shia restrictions on women a "gain?" --PF Fox 12:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
The "gains" are identitical to the gains you cited in Wiemar Germany. Exercising the basic human right of voting. So Iraqi women have freely chosen to live under a liberal Consitutional democracy; they are met with opposition to holding these basic human rights by thier alleged "liberal" fellow thinkers in the West who argue they were better off barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, down on the farm, and subject to rape at the whim of Uday, Qusay & Saddam. Yes indeed, modern "leftists" and "liberals" are shining advocates of democracy and human rights. RobS 12:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Weimar Republic women were not driven back into their homes out of a fear of going outside with their faces uncovered, nor were they shot dead in the streets for the "crime" of practicing medicine as doctors. Or maybe you're going to claim they were, along with your bizarre contention that the Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939? --PF Fox 12:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

PF, please clarify for me once more; I get the impression you are pointedly argueing Iraqi women were better off under fascism than living under a Constitutional liberal democracy. Please set the record straight once and for all--no qualifiers added or anything. Then we can leave this discussion were it concludes and move on to other things. Thank you. RobS 12:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
There's no question that Iraqi women as a group were better off under Saddam. They were not veiled. They could practice professions.They could look forward to a higher education. With the rise of the Shia majority, (which does not qualify as a "Constitutional liberal democracy") all of those advantages are evaporating. Are you claiming otherwise? --PF Fox 12:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Hate to stick my nose into what appears to be a long-running argument but...the liberal perspective, I believe, is not that Iraqi women are better off under a fascist government than a constitutional democracy, but that under this constitutional democracy, their lives have in some ways become demonstrably worse. That does not constitute support of Saddam's regime or a wish that it could be restored. Murray 11:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Protection 2

Given the issue is nearly decided, that Liberals argue Iraqi women were better off under fascism than democracy, I have reinserted the language,

opposition to American foreign policy [4] which advocates human rights [5][6] and democracy [7]

with the attendent footnotes and protected the page from further vandalism. RobS 13:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

That is extremely misleading. I'm sure liberal opposition to the foreign policy is not because liberals are against advocating human rights and democracy but for other reasons. The present version is not very encyclopedic but, hey, block the page so no one can do an encyclopedic edit.
WhatIsG0ing0n 11:03, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Upon further review, we see oppostiion to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy really is not limited to just recent years; we have more less successfully defined American Liberalism as equivalent to European Socialism, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we have only just began to show Marxism stands in direct opposition to universally recognized human rights. Then in reviewing US history, likewise we see Liberals actively opposed human rights and democracy for the peoples of Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, and the peoples of South Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1960s and 70s. So there is ample evidence to support the claim. And various so-called "liberal" editors here in Conservapedia openly state women were better off without the vote under Iraqi fascism than being supported by the United States in a Constitutional democracy. RobS 14:11, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • RobS, why did you remove the link to Goerge W. Bush opposing nation building, and the pint that republicans are isolationist at times, too? Opposing nation building was an position that got him votes in 2000, probably the winning ones, so why hide it? Nothing to be ashamed of. Furthermore, we went trough the whole "opposition" thing about 3 times in the last month. At some point you kind of understood that liberals do not believe the Bushs, Nixons, Reagans when these claimed they did/do it to free the people from oppression. Just like conservatives didn't believe Clinton when he intervened in Sudan.
  • Furthermore, I don't believe that you lack the knowledge to distinguish between European socialism, and the Democratic party.
  • Finally, since the article is locked, it seems like you are abusing your sysop privileges, by push controvesial edits. The previous formulation was a compromise, after weeks of disccussion. It changed from support for human rights to support, back to opposition, back to support, until we agreed that Liberal just don't get it, that Bush is doing it for human rights. You are showing a lot of disrespect to a long discussion, to which contributed a lot yourself. User:Order 9 April , 18:20 (AEST)
Remember, articles 23-29 give socioeconomic rights (right to job, right to minimum standard of living, etc) - social security is definitely something 'liberals' push for (sorry, but I hate the broad grouping).

'Liberals actively opposed human rights and democracy for the peoples of Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s'

What? But the conservatives funded the contras, who proceeded to go around massacring their enemies. I don't see that as very supportive of human rights and democracy. Wikinterpreter

I fear RobS has lost the plot which means this article will forthwith continue to conform to Conservapedia standards.
I moved the relevent portions of an exhange from an old-time "Liberal" to this page [11] who helped pursuade me it isn't just a recent phenomenon; but there certainly is no denying it anymore after 2003. He says point blank, Iraqi women were better off for thirty years under fasicm than having the vote today, and living under a liberal, Contsitutional democracy. This particular editor I feel is a well quailfied spokesperson for so-called "liberal views", and probably has a nearly 60 year track record for holding them and being active. So I can't dismiss his views as that of some young idiot-punk regurgitating the garbage he picks up in school or MTV. RobS 16:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I doubt that any editor here is a spokesperson of the liberals. Thats just wishfull thinking. On his side, and on your side. Currently, the entry shows an refreshing naivety about politics. It says that just because Bush says the aim of his foreign policy is to promote human rights, every American believes him, because he is a president. Since Wilson, all president have claimed to support human rights abroad, and I doubt that that you, User:RobS:RobS believe all of them. You cannot be so naive. You are just angry at some particular liberal, and the article shows it, by being unencyclopedic and rather naive about political reality. User:Order 10 April , 10:30 (AEST)
That is an interesting interpretation. Nonetheless, every President since Wilson has actually been elected to the office and has a Constitutional responsibility, whereas critics have only been critics. RobS 21:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure, and critics have the right to be critical, be it Clinton or Bush. You have to accept that they come to a different view of the presidents policies, even if you given them the same evidence, and even if it doesn't coincide with your view. Order 10 April 11:25 (AEST)

The questions remain: Why did you remove the reference to Bush's pre-2000 anti-nation-building position? Why did you revert a good compromise on how liberals view current foreign policy? And why do you lock an article, but continue editing, which is an abuse of sysop privilege? Order 10 April 10:50 (AEST)

The isolationist stuff, while on the surface looks like a lame disclaimer for what follows, probably needs reviewing. However, to maintain isolationism is now, or has been a traditional "liberal" view is somewhat of strech, cause there probably is quite a lengthy record of libs calling for active intervention arounf the world for decades. This indeed, is why the Iraq is such a milestone. On the stuff of about human rights & democracy, we may have to look closely at the cases of North & South Vietnam, and some others since that time, as well. RobS 21:12, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Several leading "Liberals" such as Kennedy, have called for active U.S. Military intervention and regime change, to save lives in Africa, many times. Yet they were opposed to the same, and indeed it cost several hundred thousands their lives, in Iraq and elsewhere. It was the public policy of Ronald Reagan, and indeed even John Kennedy to spread freedom everywhere. --~ TK MyTalk 21:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That why the previous version said, maybe poorly worded, that isolationist vs interventionist positions are traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. And Iraq is not the first time that democrats (which is not the same as liberals) favor isolationist positions. The opposition in the US typically turns isolationist, when a foreign adventure turns ugly.Order 10 April 11:30 (AEST)

You have put you finger on something very relevent here. RobS 21:53, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Well yes! Overseas adventures should be just like television! All neatly wrapped up in as short a time period as possible. --~ TK MyTalk 21:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

____ Here is the full version of the isolationist/national building section that was removed;

  • currently, opposition to interventionist foreign policy that involves nation building.

Isolationist positions are however traditionally neither liberal nor conservative. There are examples for isolationist positions on both sides of the political divide. [2]

  1. 1 Peter 2:16 (King James Version)
  2. The Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate

Here is one brief exerpt:

GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to.

Two questions: (1) what is the relevence of this link? (2) it appears Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Gore is proposing a policy of regime change in Iraq to further democracy. RobS 14:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It tells you that at some point Democrats (not the same as Liberals) supported intervetionist positions. And this quote from the same debate shows that Republican oppose them sometimes:

BUSH:But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

Or this quote:

BUSH:I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.

So, both sides of the political divide sometimes oppose nation building, and favor it at other times. So, it nicely illustrates the point. User:Order 11 April, 9:45 (AEST)

  • I see that the article still says that "Liberals oppose foreign policy", while it should say "Liberals refuse to view foreign policy". You locked the artcile and you keep editing it. Could you either unlock it, or stop editing it. User:Order 11 April, 9:45 (AEST)
    • Where have I edited since restoring the original language and removing the questionable content?
You changed it here, protected it one minute later here, and continued editing it here and here, and other parts of the same article a few times since. User:Order 11 April 12:30.
The Fisk cite I thought was agreed to stay, yet somebody removed it; then came the page protect; then a fx fmt. Then I removed the isolationist claim which itself, in context, in the mainspace, said was irrelevent to so-called "liberal views". You and I have discussed this here, and I think we agree it is irrelevent to liberal views, and is available on this talk page for discussion as to why it should be included. And as I pointed out just below here, opposition to candidate George W. Bush, or President George W. Bush does not define for us what are the moral guiding principals of liberalism. RobS 22:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
    • As to the 2000 Debate quote: yes this is interesting stuff, but it's probably not being used properly and certainly, as you appear to agree, not on the correct page.
    • By interesting I mean, pretending that 911 did not occur, and quoting a foreign policy position that refers to the 1990s, while ignoring rather significant foreign policy developments since, is this a legitimate use of source material? Gore's statements regarding sanctions are specificially noteworthy--and they indeed are of more significant importance in determining what "liberal" and/or Democratic party views on foreign policy really and truelly are, rather than dredging up out of context Bush quotes to criticize the currrent Administration. The issue is not, 'Do liberals support Bush's policy now or ever?'; the issue is, What is the liberal position on foreign policy? And bringing George W. Bush's name into the discussion does absolutely nothing to answer that, other than add weight to the view that there are no overrriding moral principals behind a liberal foreign policy position, and liberal views on foreign policy are driven by the whim of fortune and partisan idiocy. RobS 21:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry on interventionism said that Liberal currently (post-911, although to their credit they support Afghanistan, and in the beginning Iraq as well)) oppose nation building (we a can agree on this) but that this position is traditionally neither liberal nor conservative, since for example G.W. Bushopposed nation building in the past while Gore favored it (and I guess we can agree on this as well). Opposition to nation building is not a core liberal belief, nor is it it a conservative belief. And the Gore-Bush debate illustrates that nicely. And that is exactly what the old version said. And thats why it should be restored. User:Order 11 April, 12:35 (AEST)

To argue a moot point: First off, so-called "nation building" is a media phrase that was invented circa 2000 to thumbnail a bunch of more detailed foreign policy objectives for what the media considers an idiot electorate; I have been involved in this stuff my whole life, have never heard the phrase "nation building" prior to that time, and can't say any candidate or person should be held to account on anything because journalists are too (damn) lazy to do their job properly and inform the public, so instead invent just another abusive journalistic phrase. Secondly, what Bush said in a debate has nothing to do with liberal views on anything. Third, you misquote Bush anyway, he does not "oppose nation building"; he said the Haiti operation wasn't worth it. You clearly got caught with your hand in the cookie jar on this one...Bush does not blanketly oppose nation building; he specifically criticizes one instance of "nation building". Trying to make something out of this not only totally fails to make your point, it adds to the criticism Liberals have no valid or serious views on any of these matters, and will wrench totally contorted meanings out of context in a paltry effort to sanitize miserable failings laid bare and exposed for the world to see. Why pursue totally fruitless efforts like this? All it does is damage to your own efforts. To have credibilty whatsoever, the Gore sanction stuff is what you need to address, cause it is key to Iraq War, WMD, and a bunch of other more relevent articles. RobS 23:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • What Bush said has alot to do with how you portrait Liberals. When someone says that opposition to nation building is a belief that distinguishes Liberals from Conservatives, you can rightfully point to Bush, and say that it is not distinctively Liberal.
    • No. forget George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a lame duck and will be ancient history in less than two years. We want to know what the eternal values of Liberals are. We want to know what these values will be in the year 2010 (when G.W. Bush will be chewing dip on the front porch in Crawford). We want to know what the enduring values of liberals will be in the year 2525. And "opposition to their opponents" defines nothing.
      • In 2525 people want to know if interventionism was a core liberal belief at the turn of the millenium. They look at the Democrats and say: Hm, they supported intervention in Afghanistan, and supported it in Iraq, before they were vocally against it. No, its not a core liberal belief. Was it a core conservative belief? No, tconservatives opposed in Haiti, but supported it in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not a core conservative belief either. User:Order 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
        • Let's return to this issue of Haiti one more time, not becuase it does anything whatsoever to prove your point (in fact it works against it) because I recall both the debate, and the issues under public discussion prior to the debate that lead to this question. And I recall it all as if it were yesterday. First off, the answer Bush gives has nothing to do with US foreign policy; it specifically references a post-Cold War era debate about the role of US "Peacekeepers". In otherwords, the public debate in and outside that Presidential debate was about using the US military as social workers and not as soldiers. While to my way of thinking, a discussion of this nature would be interesting regarding Iraq right now, neither you nor anyone else is doing so. And in MISQUOTING Bush with this text, you are not discussing that question either. Secondly, now you are confusing "liberals" with the Democratic Party, and making a generalization which I do not beleive can be sustained. Third, candidate Bush in a debate criticizing a past action is not "conservative opposition to the Haiti operation", and there is no way you can make it such. Finally, you have repeatedly failed to express an understanding of how an Administration, any Administration, works, particularly in acticulating foreign policy. You refer to military operations as "foreign policy"; you refer to military doctines as "foreign policy". While the Department of Defense may play a role in implenting an Administration foreign policy, and helping to achieve it, the Department of Defense does not design, dicate or direct the policy. It may be used to facilitate the policy, but in an ideal world, it's role is limited, and someday will be withdrawn, and the policy will stand on its own without assistance from the Pentagon. When the military completes its task, that does not mean the policy has come to end. It means the policy is now in place and can be sustained without military assistance. In discussing some of this stuff with you, I get the impression you don't have a clue about the subject. My impression is your arguements (as many liberals are) is driveen by two year election cycle electoral politics. And whatever the popular cathwords and buzz phrases of the day are, dicated by marketing specialists and polsters, is all that matters. So if you can string together a bunch of words and phrases that make complete sentences and maybe a paragraph or two, and they give the appearance of understanding what foreign policy is, your momentarily ahead of the game. Cause your real objective has absolutely nothing to do with implementing or carrying out US foreign policy, it has everything to do with domestic electoral politics. Therein is the problem; libs evidentally define themselves in terms of who their percieved enemies are. So if an imaginary enemy carries a strong, high profile foreign policy--dread of all dreads--now libs have to pretend for at least a two year election cycle they (1) actually have some understanding of foreign policy (2) actually have an interest in foreign policy (3) actually have alternative foreign policy proposals. The worst scenario of all is to openly admit you have no interest and/or qualifications in this area, cause then your conceeding the game to your imaginary opponent. So this dictates taking all sorts of absolutley bizarre positions, ranging from justifying murder and murderers, to open sympathy for terrorists. So, for as long as you wish to continue bringing citations like this Presidential debate, yes, I'll play this silly game with you.
You assume somehow that describing how liberal positions compare to conservative positions is the same as advocating liberal positions. Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle? You try to win an imagined argument with scoring technical points, like that the military is just a tool (Did I say otherwise?), or that Liberal and Democrats are something different (That point has been repeated made by me an others again and again), and otherwise calling people liberal. The argument is imagined, because nobody here wants to discuss with you whether Bush's criticism on the intervention in Haiti was right or wrong. The article should describe current and historic policies, not propose an alternatives. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a think tank. I am just interested that he criticized the intervention in Haiti, to get to the point that conservatives can hold isolationist positions, too. User:Order 12 April, 9:40 (AEST)
Tell me one point where the point I try to make is driven by the two-year election cycle?
This is easy. Were the origin blanket statement was made "opposition to American foreign policy" was modified to "opposition to current American forieng policy"; now, in two years, rather than being a doctrinaire observation of liberal foreign policy since the Vietnam war, it will be just a moot point (assume libs win control of the Administration in two years). RobS 21:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I am not even sure if I added the "current", but it should indeed be there. Liberals oppose the "current" US foreign policy, but they didn't oppose US foreign policy a few years ago. The observation of political positions is not driven by the election cycle, but the positions that are observed are. If you observe positions and behavior of politicians, you have to live with the fact that they are driven by the election cycle. Since, you didn't answer my question I'll ask again: Where did I change an observation because of the election cycle?User:Order 12 April, 14:45 (AEST)
Your other point. Do you suggest that Liberals oppose all foreign policy that claimed to further human rights since the Vietnam War? Carter and Clinton had quite some foreign policies, that they claimed furthered human rights, and I doubt that Liberals were generally opposed to all of it. Sure, it would be nice if you could make a general statement about Liberals, like they always oppose foreign interventions, but unfortunately its not true. That why you cannot put it into the article. [[User:Order] 12 April, 14:45 (AEST)
  • Furthermore, Bush answered Absolutely not to the question if the US military should make nation building one of its core missions. That suggest firm opposition. That the word was invented in the late 90s doesn't matter. Call it interventionism, if you like it better.
    • "The US military". Duh, come on? does this even need a response?
  • Your point about Haiti doesn't prove that I have my hands in the cookie jar, sorry, (you probably assume that I want to blame Bush for his 2000 stance on nation building). However, it proves that you are able to see that people can have good reasons to oppose an official policy by the sitting president, and not because they oppose freedom, but because they think that the execution of the policy is poor, and that it doesn't achieve the purpose. As a reminder, lets repeat what I said a few weeks ago about why people oppose an official policy that claims to further human rights.
    • Now "an official policy of a president" gets confused with "the US military core responsibilities". Order, please take note, you are not speaking with someone who swallows any line of Liberal crap because it sounds reasonable or intelligent. This kinda of meaningless nonsense isn't even worth the time discussing if you cannot present a coherent arguememnt.
      • The president is the commander in chief, and determines the core responsibilities. What is Liberal about this statement? User:Order 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
1. Firstly, you may or may not believe the claim that the administration does it for human rights, you may believe that the administration has ulterior motives
Been over this probably four times now: (1) the Adminstration is a constitutional Office with a Constitutional responsibility; (2) opponents & critics have the right to think and say whatever garbage they want, they still are just that, opponents ant critics of Official US policy.
Just because they are a constitutional body doesn't mean that you have to believe them. Do you believe every president since Wilson?
2. Secondly, even if you do believe a policy want to further human rights, you might believe that a given policy fails to do so.
Fine. So what? Because they oppose US policy means they do not oppose US policy? What's the point here?
The point is that you might oppose intervention in Haiti to restore democracy, even if you are in favor of democracy in Haiti, because you think that intervention doesn't work and iss a waste of resources. User:Order 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
3. Furthermore, you might think that furthering human right abroad is none of the US military's business.
OK, we're getting onto something. The Pentagon and the Statement Department, while both part of the Administration, are two different Departments. Now, which Department handles diplomatic relations and foreign policy?
Both. Or didn't Defense go into Iraq to topple a dictator and bring Human Rights and Democracy? User:Order 11 April 16:50 (AEST)
4. And finally, you might be opposed to human rights.

Bush falls clearly in category 2, with his criticism. And most Liberal critics today of Bush as well. The article however suggest that the Liberals critics belong to category 4. And that's incorrect. Just as much as it would be incorrect to say that Bush opposed democracy in Haiti. Now, that you are able to see these differences when it concerns Bush, you might be evenly capable to see these differences when it concerns Liberals.

You still haven't said anything. NOBODY GIVES A RATS TAIL ABOUT GEORGE BUSH. We'll take your word for it, Liberals hate his guts . Big deal. Now, what do Liberals stand for? RobS 00:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
What Liberals stand for? When it comes to isolationism and interventionism they don't have a clear position. Neither have Conservatives. User:Order 11 April 16:50 (AEST)

RobS, we try to write an encyclopedic article about 'Liberals'. However, what you try to do is settle the Gore-Bush dispute. I said it before, your anger at Liberals on issues from recent history doesn't make a good article. If you think that I am arguing in favor of Gore, you are mistaken. I argue to see interventionist positions as what they are, neither liberal nor conservative. And the Gore-Bush debate proves it. Order 11 April, 13:55 (AEST)

Take some breath RobS. It seems like you you not able, or not willing, to distinguish between a description of Liberal positions, and advocating those positions. I am describing positions. I am not at all interested in what you think about them, as much as I think that it not interesting put into the article what I think about them. You should be able to observe why a critic opposes a foreign policy. Observing and describing a position doesn't mean that you have to agree with a position.

Some things that we should be able to agree upon are the following:

  • Isolationism is neither liberal nor conservative, neither now, nor in 2000, nor at some other time in the last century.
  • People oppose foreign policies for at least four different reasons.
  • Only one of these reasons is that people oppose human rights abroad on principal grounds.
  • Other reasons why people oppose policies of an administration are that they doubt the integrity, the capability or the responsibility of the administration. Order 11 April 17:15 (AEST)

It seems like the contended edit of a stable version, which was protected one minute later here will neither be reverted, nor will this article be unlocked anytime soon. Order 13 April 11:25 (AEST)

All the action is at Political spectrum right now; perhaps there we can get some foundational defintions to use elsewhere. Would you be interested in joining a concensus to move that page to Political spectrum theory? I'm considering a poll, and by labeling it a theory we will have more latitude for generalizations. Without it, however, we need hard core specifics for any claim. RobS 21:39, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal vs libertarian

Unfortunately, the identical definition of a "Liberal" was have on the Libertarian page.

They tend to define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property through coercive means.

This page had read,

Liberal in its secular meaning, describes someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms[1], as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others

There is little, or no difference between the two; an editor posted on Talk:Political spectrum#Criticisms of a one-dimensional view this proposed language for that article,

libertarians say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is not a left-wing or right-wing position.
So, to avoid any further confusion on all these issues, I have made a reversion. RobS 14:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Etymology [12]