Talk:Liberal myths

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? DanH 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? HelpJazz 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm ripping this apart one by one

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in Science classes. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. Graham 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? HelpJazz 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... Graham 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm ripping you a new one!

Here you go, sport!

"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 bil­lion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

Chart1 lg.gif

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 bil­lion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [1]

From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? AuH2O
Libertarians do ;-) HelpJazz 10:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increas­ing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 re­cession) shows that this is exactly what hap­pened (see Table 3):

Table 3 lg.gif
  • GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
  • Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consec­utive quarters.
  • The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Divi­dend payouts increased as well.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
  • The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quar­ters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turn­around began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the sup­ply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in mar­ginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[2] --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) Graham 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
  • When you are refuted, have the good grace to accept defeat. Don't respond with more talking points from moveon or daily kos. Most responsible economists would never say all budget deficits are bad. And again, read the Constitution! Presidents cannot appropriate money! That was, 75% of the time since FDR, a liberal, Democrat-controlled Congress. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all I don't read Move on or Daily Kos. I stick to reading the Irish Times, if anything (The Centre-Right paper in my country) or the Economist when I want a more Liberal perspective on things.

Presidents do not appropriate money - but they can veto. Add to this the fact there was a Republican Congress, the President could have balanced the Budget. The fact that he did not is a testament to his lack of fiscal responsibility. Graham 17:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P-S Going all Keynesian (deficit spending) on me TK!?? I might have expected that from a crusty old Liberal like myself but you... :-O Graham 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? Graham 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fetus rights

The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.

I've been going over our own rights and I have to say, it's tough to give them to a fetus.

1st: While a good idea, they don't really talk much. And besides, if they have the right to free speech, their host mothers won't have any rest.
2nd: While I personally am all for gun rights, over here I'll make an exception. The recoil of a gun can harm fetus', besides, the exit wound on the mother would be awful.
3rd: There really isn't any room in the womb for soldiers, besides, I doubt they would be stationed there.
4th: What exactly would they be looking for anyway, the charges would be dismissed for a lack of probable cause.
5th: Like I said they don't talk much. Due process isn't really applicable
6th: Might apply, without a speedy trial, after birth it's as if their in a new jurisdiction.
7th: Jury of his peers would be tough, fetuses are always trying to get out of jury duty by saying they're too young to register.
8th: Bail them out, huh? How do they get transported to prison in the first place, (I agree that the cruel and unusual punishment part applies though).
9th: Need a joke for this one.
10th: Here too.

A belated Aprils fool day gift.

---user:DLerner--- 11:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Unilateral action

As I understand if Jpatt, you are saying that the US should not be restricted from acting unilaterally should the situation demand it. This is not helped by then pointing out a situation that some people think is unilateral was not unilateral (if anything it tends to show the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make. Also it is a liberal myth that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq.--MCrowe 18:24, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

go ahead and change to "that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq". It sounds better than what I have up there.--jp 18:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Pruning Needed

I keep seeing unreferenced items being added to this page, and it's reading more and more like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. I'm going to remove the following items unless someone can provide sources backing them up:

  • The claim that the population has increased by a large amount.
Population growth is a documented fact, not a myth. Whether or not it's "over" population is more debatable.
  • The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
Between 1870 and 1950, the average American’s level of education rose by 0.8 years per decade.[3] In 1890, the average adult had completed about 8 years of schooling. By 1960, it was nearly 14 years.
  • The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
His administration announced on 7/28/2008 that they are leaving a record deficit for the next president.
  • The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
We are in a near-recession if not in one already, and at historic levels of national debt and budget deficits
  • The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
Bush and other conservatives have not taken any Arab allies to task over this, either.
  • The claim that enabling oil drilling will not reduce energy prices.
In the near term it doestn't, and this has been verified by conservative economists and backed by the Wall Street Journal
  • The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father.
No proof provided for this subjective claim
  • The claim that an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right.
This is a political position, not a myth
  • The claim that President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to grab oil.
This is an irrational conspiracy theory, not a liberal one.
  • The claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an inside job by the USA.
This is an irrational conspiracy theory, not a liberal one.
  • The claim that Foreign Intelligence & Surveillance Act (FISA) is for spying on Americans.
The issue is that because of FISA, there is no need for warrantless wiretaps.
  • The claim that bigger government will benefit its' citizens.
Bush bloated government spending, and in his first four years never vetoed a big-spending bill sent to him by the Republican-controlled Congress
  • The claim that military recruits are poor and uneducated.
This is being retained, but during Bush's administration the number of felony waivers granted to hit recruiting goals shot way up. The military is accepting arsonists, thieves and sexual abusers because it can't meet its quotas otherwise.
  • The claim that going on the offense against terrorists creates more terrorists.
The claim is that going after terrorists dishonorably creates more terrorists.
  • The claim that terrorism should be handled by law enforcement.
As opposed to who? No one suggests the military is not right either.
  • The claim that the USA should negotiate with rogue nations and terror groups.
Bush has negotiated with Libya and North Korea to achieve progress
  • The claim that socialism is a better than a capitalism.
Not a liberal belief, and no source was provided to the contrary
-DinsdaleP 10:44, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Not all have to be cited and some of these are going back up. Curious to why you feel some need citations yet you didn't remove all without citations. I will go point to point on each of your accusations. When a article has a disclaimer, not enough citations, removing them sort of defeats the purpose. Even though you gave a day for a reply.--jp 17:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


I was trying to be respectful and solicit feedback before the pruning, and I chose that term for a reason. I wasn't looking to wipe the entire page, and left uncited points which were not as clearly out of place as the ones I was removing. I also gave a brief explanation for why I believed each trimmed point should be removed. What I'd ask is that before any are put back, they are cited, or the reason why they don't need to be cited briefly explained.

I know people get sensitive when any edits are made to a "Liberal ----" article, so when I contemplate changes I keep it fair, and think about how people would want a corresponding "Conservative ----" article to read. With that in mind, please apply the same consideration to the quality and validation of additions here. --DinsdaleP 17:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

New Sources Added

Thanks for adding the new sources, Jpatt. I'm not adding any more edits to this article myself, because I've been reverted twice in the past 24 hours, and the comments on this from ASchlafly left no doubt as to how anything but additional support for the current list would be regarded.

That said, I'll leave with a constructive suggestion. This page is about alleged liberal myths, and in order to establish that something is a myth you generally need to show two things: first, that there's a statement someone believes, and second, that the statement is clearly untrue, or at least in doubt. The problems with the sources you've added are that you're either picking isolated examples (Nancy Pelosi does not represent all liberals, just as Ted Haggard does not represent all conservatives), or they just show a liberal view without showing why that view's a myth. Some specifics:

  • When Bush and McCain supported the rollback on offshore drilling bans, conservative economists and the Wall Street Journal panned this as ineffective gimmickry. How is this a myth, then?
  • How is the idea that liberals support womens' rights but don't speak out against womens' rights in Muslim countries a myth? If it was true it would be hypocrisy, but not a myth. The source cited is for the ACLU Women's Right project, and by definition the ACLU is focused on American rights issues, not global ones, so the plight of women in other nations is not in their official scope. Finally, for this to be a liberal myth it would only apply to liberals, but there's no proof of conservatives, particularly the Bush administration and its concern for relations with Arab allies, making this an issue.
It is a myth, because feminists in this country always complain they have less rights, when in fact they make up a higher precentage of the colleges than men, feminists always complain about every little thing in the USA, when worldwide women are treated horribly versus in the USA where women are treated as equals, feminists if anything should be complaining about how women are treated by muslims, but they don't, they just get more radical. They try doing stupid things like renaming man hole covers to person hole covers -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk)

email me 16:39, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Deborah, while you're entitled to your views, speaking out for rights in the USA while not focusing on rights elsewhere still doesn't make this a "myth" - at worst it's either a myopic focus or at the extreme, hypocrisy. To claim it's a myth would be like claiming the civil rights movement in the 1950's was a liberal myth because it focused on issues in the USA while ignoring apartheid in South Africa. As I pointed out, you don't see George Bush using his connections and influence with Arab leaders like the Saudi Royal family to continually pressure them to let women drive, vote or walk alone unescorted - these are not good things in our view, but it's not our country/culture, so our influence is limited. Choosing to focus on domestic issues, where change is more feasible, doesn't make it a myth. --DinsdaleP 11:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

  • You've added a cite for why some feel that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father, but nothing to show why this is a myth.
  • If "an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right" is a liberal myth, then why do conservatives like McCain accept the concept of civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, since the purpose of the former is to offer rights and protections to homosexuals under the law without sanctioning gay marriage itself?
McCain is a right-leaning, he is an environmentalist, remember Huckabee, is a better example of a conservative than McCain -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk)

email me 16:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

In October 2004, George W. Bush came out in support of civil unions instead of gay marriage, albeit on a state-by-state basis, because he recognized the legitimacy of people needing equal rights under the law:
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
-DinsdaleP 11:37, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
  • You used a socialist reference, not a liberal one, to support the item about WMD in Iraq being about grabbing oil.
Socialists are liberals by definition, I know socialists and communists they all vote Democrat -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk)

email me 16:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

That's not a valid premise - fascists are a subset of conservatives, and would vote that way too, but I would never use the views of fascists to represent conservatives because it's misleading to use extreme minority views to represent the views of the majority. --DinsdaleP 11:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Deborah - by definition, any "socialists and communists" you know that vote Democrat are not what they say they are - they're Democrats. No actual Socialist or Communist would vote for a centre-right party - they have their own parties to vote for, after all. EngelUmpocker 13:21, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I could go on, but since I've been told these need to stay, any added examples are a waste of time. Good luck with the article, and thanks for trying at least. --DinsdaleP 13:22, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

No, that's not what you were told. I asked you to make an effort to look for citations, some of which are easy-to-find, rather than simply deleting (censoring) something you disagreed with. Many of the myths are obvious and cannot seriously be denied to be liberal myths. This is not Wikipedia where liberal editors run around quickly deleting truths they don't like by claiming they are unsupported.
Deborah's analysis about feminists above is superb, and I can add that women in the United States live on average far longer than men, which is hardly a sign of suppression and victimization.--Aschlafly 17:52, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
Trustworthy Encyclopedia are not built by filling pages with unsupported statements and then expecting others to do the work of validating them - I'm assuming that this is why Conservapedia Commandments #1 and #2 were created, and place at the top of the list. Also, women living longer than men on average is about biology, not suppression and victimization. Women also live longer in India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, so I'd hardly say that using life expectancy as a measure of the quality of life is valid. --DinsdaleP 11:50, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Let me first say that I do not expect to have all the answers and I am wrong as much as I am right. With that said, I will try to answer some of your questions.

"When Bush and McCain supported the rollback on offshore drilling bans, conservative economists and the Wall Street Journal panned this as ineffective gimmickry. How is this a myth, then? "

Well, it is a liberal myth that we will get pennies on the dollar twenty years from now with offshore drilling. Though Pelosi said it, many in her own party have taken her stand. Also, many of her party feel vulnerable on this issue and support drilling less face the rath of voters. Conservatives say inneffective gimmickry, then somebody will have a list of conservative myths too. The myth is drilling doesn't lower prices. Proof? none. We will only know if it happens. My belief is that as soon as we announce to the world that the USA will use all resources available, the price drops without a pint of oil extracted. Also, 10 years till extraction is another myth. I read that we have hundreds of offshore wells idled by law. One year is all it will take to restart those platforms.

"Proof? None." Sounds like the idea that permitting drilling will lower prices right away is a myth, too. Seriously, the issue is also one of demand, not just supply. It doesn't matter where oil is produced from - as long as demand from China, India and elsewhere continues to grow, the oil will go to the highest bidder. We do get more jobs out of it, though. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

"How is the idea that liberals support womens' rights but don't speak out against womens' rights in Muslim countries a myth?"

I see your point. It is more hypocrisy then myth. The ACLU is probaly not a good example (American only). If I search through human rights orgs, they list women in other countries. If I was to pick all liberal orgs, they would be focused on American women's rights and not other womens from other countries. I refer you to Deborahs conclusion.

Please refer to my response to Deborah. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

"You've added a cite for why some feel that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the love from a mother and a father, but nothing to show why this is a myth."

The liberal groups will say studies show that same-sex couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples to raise kids. If that is their belief, than they assume that the love they provide is the same as hetero couples. How do you measure love? If you look at the beginning of mankind, it was a mother and a father. That was the ultimate measure. Now it has been refined. It is a myth that two same-sex'ers can replace all that a child needs.

"How do you measure love? " I think you just made by point for me, because the quality of the love one receives has nothing to do with who they get it from. There's no qualification requirement to be a good parent, and sadly, too many kids in "traditional" families get a rough start in life from poor parenting. Adoptive parents go through screening that biological parents never have to face, so if they pass, and are willing to share their lives and love with kids in need, why stop them over idology and have the kids stay in orphanages and foster homes as a result? Surely that's not in the child's best interest. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

"If an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right" is a liberal myth, then why do conservatives like McCain accept the concept of civil unions as an alternative"

First, it is forced on them over the years. They were not offering protections until the minority clamored for it. I can't answer for McCain. All I can say is that is my belief that they deserve zero rights. That their sexual preference should not be public knowledge. If not public, than not an issue. Gay activist deliberately push the envelope to stake their high ground so as to feel as normal as their neighbors.

See my response to Deborah. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

"You used a socialist reference, not a liberal one, to support the item about WMD in Iraq " I will come up with additional sources. I agree with Deborah that liberal ideals are just socialism; universal health, extensive government mandates, fairness doctrine, etc. You could claim that moderate liberals don't feel that way. That it is all the concept of the far-left. It is sorta unfair but the definition of liberal has been driven by the New Democrats. I prefer and honor the liberals of the 1950's and earlier, if you could even call them liberal. As of the 21st century, socialist ideaology mimicks liberal ideaology.

See my response to Deborah. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

"The problems with the sources you've added are that you're either picking isolated examples" Further study would prove that it is not isolated but mainstream liberal thinking.--jp 20:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Not based on the sources you chose. Try some more mainstream sources and see if you get the same results. --DinsdaleP 12:00, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Oil Drilling

I'm not starting another edit war, but come on - drilling does not provide energy security, because oil is a finite resource, and in free markets it will always go to the highest bidder. If an American oil company drills on American territory, they will still sell it to China or India if they pay more than anyone else, so unless demand freezes or goes down more drilling does not equal more energy security. All it does is postpone the inevitable, because sometime this century it will either run out or become so expensive due to supply & demand forces that it can't be used to the degree it is today. That's not a liberal myth, it's the reality of conservative economics. --DinsdaleP 19:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand why you can't see that. If we drill our own oil, then we don't send $700 billion abroad to countries that don't care for us. The argument states that even if we didn't drop the price of gas one nickle, we have just secured America from financing nations that wish us harm.--jp 19:45, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
You equated oil drilling with energy security, not economic security. If we drill it and then sell it to other nations that bid more, the profits go to the shareholders of the companies that produced the oil. Sure we get jobs, and even some tax revenue but drilling more of a finite resource now just accelerates its depletion - security comes from developing long term alternatives. A true fiscal conservative thinks and plans long term like Warren Buffet, instead of focusing on short-term gains like Donald Trump. --DinsdaleP 20:17, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Economic security via energy or energy security via economics? Your point rightfully taken if you mean energy security by means of energy independence and the use of alternatives. The fact remains, the long term includes oil unfortunately unless the long term also includes the replacement of oil in every area, not just energy.--jp 20:55, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm just pointing out that energy security won't come from drilling, so it should be removed from the myth-list. Unfortunately, it also won't come from economics either, which helps determine which options are feasible in varying conditions, but doesn't create any solutions in and of itself. --DinsdaleP 21:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm just pointing out that energy security won't come from drilling is a myth--jp 21:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Before we conclude that, one question. How much oil do we expect to get from increased drilling?--Frey 20:55, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
It's a simple question. Anyone?--Frey 09:58, 3 November 2008 (EST)

War on Terror

The new reference is appreciated, but this is still not a myth. First off, Bush is taking Obama's comments out of context and twisting it to sound like civil prosecution after an attack is an adequate way to address terrorism. That's not Obama's position, as this more comprehensive reference shows. What Obama was talking about is that instead of locking up enemy combatants for years outside of civil law and without due process, waiting for military tribunals while bogus confessions are extracted under harsh interrogation, we could have prosecuted them fairly and quickly, and have them serving justly-deserved sentences in jail today. Obama has long called for stepping up our activity against the terrorists who actually attacked us at their power bases in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border, instead of diverting resources on the fiasco in Iraq. That is hardly "relying on law enforcement", and Bush doesn't mention it because a Pentagon-funded study by the Rand Group published in July concluded that the Bush strategy for fighting the war on terror has, like so many of his other policies, been unsuccessful. --DinsdaleP 14:28, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Red Meat

how is this a liberal myth? it's an undisputable fact that it takes less net energy to grow plants than to grow livestock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaeljw (talk)

Presumably the "myth" part isn't the amount of energy it takes to raise livestock, but the fact that we should be eating less to combat climate change. HelpJazz 13:56, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Clarification needed

Not trying to "rip apart one by one" or anything, just hoping that whoever added the claims below could clarify them a bit.

"people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries."

Knowledge as in the total knowledge of mankind or the knowledge of an average individual? Something else?

"an individuals sexual preference needs to be a protected civil right."

Is this not an opinion? The source seems to be dead so I'm not quite sure about the context.

"atheists are just as moral as Christians who regularly go to a church, or, in some cases, atheists are morally superior."

The article "moral" says: "each groups sees their sets of morals as supreme." Doesn't this sort of render the claim axiomatic, false if seen from Christian point of view, true if seen from atheist point of view?

"we should eat less red meat in order to combat climate change."

The "we should" part sounds like an opinion again. How is it not?

"They claim that humans and apes have a common ancestor"

I take it someone claims certainty, who? A theory certainly exists and, as far as I know, hasn't been proven false.

--Tmb 11:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Nation of Islam

Myth: Nation of Islam is seperate from Islam. It is not a religion but it is 100% tied with Islam, hence the name Islam. Do their members enforce Sharia, no. Do their members travel to Mecca? I don't know. The fact remains, it is not seperate and they are tied by a common ideology- Islam. It may be more akin to an organization such as the Knights of Columbus. But KOC is tied to Christianity just as NOI is tied to Islam.--Jpatt 12:47, 12 November 2008 (EST)

  • The Nation of Islam preaches adherence to the Five Pillars of the Islamic Faith: shahadah, or profession of faith; salat, or prayer, five times daily facing toward Mecca; zakat, charity to the poor; sawm, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan; and hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca required of every Muslim financially and physically able to go, at least once in his or her lifetime.

So it seems NOI is related to Islam, in the sense of having some ideas and practices in common. The question is whether either group identifies with the other. That is, does NOI claim to be Muslim (or part of Islam)? And - a separate question - does Islam accept/repudiate NOI? --Ed Poor Talk 12:55, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Hsmom explains it pretty clearly on the Obama talk page, I think [4]. NOI is based on, but separate from Islam. HelpJazz 13:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)
There is no overarching authority in Islam, no Muslim Pope to excommunicate heretics, so even if other Islamic sects denounce NoI, that doesn't mean it is not Islamic. Bugler 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Well.. sort of. It adheres to some non quranic doctrines. Most particular their belief that the messiah already came in the 20TH century. They also believe in miscegenation and segregation which are very un-muslim. It is a racial movement, not religious. They believe that people alive today should still be held accountable for slavery that ended 150 years ago, and that they should be provided for by their ANCESTORS' owners to create their own nation. Its very much not Islam. Their version of Islam EternalCritic 13:15, 12 November 2008 (EST)
They also believe in miscegenation and segregation which are very un-muslim But so did the Reform Church in South Africa. When examining whether the NoI is or isn't Islamic, we should put to one side its secular political beliefs, and concentrate on the theology. Bugler 13:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)

They are indeed a very politically active movement, but given their theological beliefs, "non-religious" would be a stretch.

We could say, roughly, that they are about as Islamic as the Mormons or Moonies are Christian. --Ed Poor Talk 13:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)

On that basis, I'd like to nominate this for removal from the list, as whether some people view them as seperate, or the same is clearly not a relation to liberalism, simply an amalgamous mission statement with extremist views in harmony or disharmony with islam at various points. EternalCritic 13:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

You misunderstand me: I consider Mormons to be Christian despite their rejection by the mainstream of Christianity. Same for my church. Thus it is not true that Nation of Islam is seperate from Islam the religion.
If liberals want to point out the actual differences while acknowledging the similarities, that is okay. But denying that there's any connection at all there is just as deceitful as saying that natural causes didn't warm up the earth's atmosphere between ice ages. --Ed Poor Talk 13:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I think I stated that poorly. . What I said was that, because the misunderstanding is based on their ideology, not on the political stance of the reader, then calling it a liberal myth is inaccurate, so it does not belong on the list of liberal myths. EternalCritic 13:32, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Do "liberals" really try to suggest that NOI is completely unrelated to Islam? I think the claim usually made (as evidenced on this talk page) is that NOI is not part of Islam. HelpJazz 17:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)

This is getting a little frustrating

Are we just making up formatting rules now? Can someone explain to me how the current version of the page makes any sense? HelpJazz 16:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I like it, it stresses the relevant information before all the examples start. --Drunk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)
It looks ugly (the letters overlap) and it follows the formatting of no other article on this site. Ed, you protected the article, could you comment please? HelpJazz 16:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)
  • This is not so much an article, but a informational list. The salient information, in the first paragraph is, and always should be, a header. Articles are different, and we format them so. Would I be remiss in reminding HelpJazz that I was among those in on the origins of this article, with Andy? You were given blocking rights, Jazz, to be able to fight vandals, not decide policy or met out punishments. Do you dispute that fact? --₮K/Talk 17:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with HelpJazz on this. In its current state it looks terrible. TOC is right at the top, which is best avoided, the section header is overly long, which isn't very reader-friendly, & it uses the largest size of header, which overlaps with the underline & makes it look like a strikethrough. Maybe some header is needed for the list section of the article, but this isn't a good way of doing it. Sideways 17:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
So we should make it look ugly because it's a "list"? That doesn't make any sense. And who says it's a list and not an article with a list?
You created it? First of all, I was also "among those in on the origins of the article" (Edit number 6). Second of all, so what? This is a community effort, and anyone who creates an article does so with the mind that other editors will edit it.
The fact is, this just looks ugly, and it doesn't match any of the other articles. If we want to have hodge-podge formatting then sure, just go ahead and delete the MoS. But then every editor gets to decide how they randomly format, not just one editor. But think about this: do you think anyone would take Encyclopedia Brittanica seriously if every article was formatted a different way? I rather doubt it.
Ed, could you please comment on this? You have protected the article and now have changed it twice. Could we work together here? HelpJazz 18:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Frustration is the negation of elation

Life is meant to be a song of joy. Whenever we reach a goal, we feel elated; we feel in sync with the song of life. But whenever we are prevented from reaching our goals, we may succumb to frustration. We may feel annoyed and irritable. But since frustration negates happiness, it doesn't make any sense to give in to it.

Frustration is an emotion that can spiral downward. Here's what I mean. Larry graduated the university and got his first good job. Now he's looking for a girlfriend. He visits clubs and dance parties in the hope of getting a date. He's frustrated by his lack of success. The frustration he experiences drains his energy and puts him in a bad mood. The next time he goes to a club or dance, he lacks enthusiasm and is feeling negative even before he speaks. Not surprisingly, he meets with further rejection. Now he finds himself sinking into a downward spiral. Before long, he may find himself weighed down with anger, little confidence, and a sense of hopelessness.

If Larry experiences severe frustration, he may feel like a prisoner. The truth is, it is the ignorance of his own freedom that is holding him captive. What is the freedom that Larry is ignoring? The greatest freedom of all, which is the freedom of thought. Larry can change his thoughts. And if he does, it will result in a change in his feelings, behaviour, outcomes, and attitude.

Frustration has two meanings. One is the feeling of disappointment that some people get when they cannot have what they want. The second meaning is the obstruction of someone's plans or efforts. Frustration in the second sense is unavoidable. That is, some of our plans are bound to be thwarted. There's nothing we can do about that. It's the nature of life. For example, the same snow that covers the ski slopes may make the roads to them impassable. So, your skiing trip may be frustrated, but YOU don't have to be. You can just shrug your shoulders and say, "That's life." Accepting life is one of the secrets of avoiding frustration.

Let's return to Larry. He's still waiting for a date. How can we help him? Well, we can teach him the law of life that states: We have to give away what we wish to receive. What is it that Larry wishes to receive? He wants to be released from frustration. He wants a date! Everything will change for Larry when he stops thinking ME, ME, ME and starts thinking YOU, YOU, YOU.

He has to turn his attention from inward to outward. Why doesn't he use the pain of frustration and loneliness that he feels to empathize with the pain of others? The solution to his problem is pitifully simple. All he has to do is find the loneliest woman in the club or at the dance and ease her pain by inviting her to dance. Once he does so, the world changes. 1) Instead of spending another lonely night, he spends a pleasant evening with a lonely person. 2) Whether it develops into a relationship or not, he boosts his and her confidence. 3) He makes a new friend. 4) He develops a more positive attitude and grows more appealing. 5) As long as he continues thinking of others, he will continue to make new friends, eventually finding the woman of his dreams.

Let's see what we can learn from two more examples. Bob is speaking in a discussion group when he is suddenly interrupted. Bob says, "Excuse me, I get frustrated when someone interrupts me while I'm speaking." "Why are you angry?" another member asks Bob. "I'm not angry; I'm frustrated," Bob answers angrily. See how a little frustration can create tension?

I'm glad some people take assertiveness training. After all, no one wants to be manipulated or controlled by others. And once they learn how to defend themselves, they'll be able to defend the rights of others. That's the positive side of assertiveness training. But there can be better approaches. You see, assertiveness can reinforce one's feelings of self-importance. For example, although Bob worded his statement properly ("I feel frustrated when others interrupt me while I'm speaking."), the real meaning was, "Excuse me, what I have to say is more important than what you have to say, so please be quiet!"

But is anything I have to say more important than what you have to say? Even if what I have to say is worthwhile, it can't be so earth-shattering that it must be said NOW. Can't it wait for another moment? Even though it may not be proper etiquette to interrupt others, when viewed through the lens of compassion, disruptive behaviour may be seen as expressions of enthusiasm or a need for recognition.

So, when I'm interrupted, I can choose to grow frustrated or to grow. That is, I can choose to grow angry or accepting, impatient or understanding, and unsympathetic or compassionate. Why don't I reserve my assertiveness for defending the rights of others? Isn't that what Christ meant by meekness? He was meek when it came to defending Himself, but rigorous in defending others. When we take the meek approach, we not only help others, but we help ourselves, for in allowing them to speak, we give ourselves the opportunity to learn.

Let's look at a second example of how someone handles frustration. Laura's friend, Diana, called hoping to gain a sympathetic ear as she aired her problem. Laura was willing to help and listened as her friend poured out her feelings. Then along comes Timmy, Laura's ten-year-old. "Mom! Mom! Mom!" he says, interrupting. As Laura strains to hear Diana through the shouts of Timmy, she feels frustrated, and an urge to scold her son rises within her. However, being compassionate, she STOPS. Meanwhile, as Diana continues venting, Laura analyzes Timmy's situation.

Then, just as Diana ends a sentence, Laura says, "I understand how you feel. But Timmy is calling me now. Let me see what he wants; then, I'll get back to you. Talk to you soon." As Laura turns to face Timmy, she wonders why he interrupts her like that. That thought then triggers a possible explanation, for she thinks he may have learned that behaviour from her. So, rather than scolding Timmy and upsetting both, she does just the opposite.

"Timmy," she says, "I think every time you want to speak to me, I interrupt you. I may be busy or thinking of something important, but that's no excuse for me to ignore you. You must feel frustrated. I want to change, but I need your help because habits are difficult to break. So, every time I interrupt you, raise your palm, like this, to signal that I need to STOP and listen. Will you do that for me, honey? Now, what did you want to tell me?"

Laura's change of tactics and change of attitude led to a change of outcome. Instead of Laura and Timmy growing upset, they are growing closer together. And she taught him how to behave, without preaching or scolding. If Timmy does interrupt her in the future at an inappropriate time, all she has to do is hold up her palm as a signal, and he will understand.

Would you like to rid yourself of frustration forever? You can if you have a big enough dream. Mother Teresa's dream was so great it dwarfed the frustration normally associated with poverty, sickness, homelessness, suffering, and death. Isn't it interesting to look at things differently and reflect on our own behaviour? If you disagree, I'll try not to be frustrated. [1]

--₮K/Talk 19:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)


I previously posted this on Talk for User:Aschlafly.

There is something ambiguous and bizarre about this following paragraph. Below, I make bold the comments that come across as anti-capitalist, even if not intended to do so.

Liberals have demonized such companies as RJ Reynolds, Walmart, Halliburton and Blackwater. Their latest target is Exxon Mobil for their enormous profits and futures market oil speculators. Most of their accusations are absurd. Liberals in Congress don't blink an eye when it comes time to spend all that tax revenue generated. Liberals in Congress have been called on their hypocrisy for owning stocks in those companies. Which in turn, [horrible grammar] they divest their portfolios like nothing was ever wrong. For years, for decades, these companies have lobbied members of Congress, they have worked together for their common goals. In return, hefty campaign donations are their reward. Then for opportune reasons, liberals will publicly ridicule and verbally attack these bad, greedy capitalists. Corporate heads are brought before congress for a sideshow grilling to explain their actions. [33] The Windfall Tax is just another example of the sham created by this liberal myth. Those companies make enough money, they should now be forced to give some back. They are threatened with nationalization [34] and further government regulation, a socialist scheme. As the price of gas fell, Congress just pretended like nothing ever happened, Big Oil off the hook.

I realize the bad, greedy part is supposed to be from a "liberal perspective," but it is not clear. The first full sentence that is bold is my main concern and nearly seems to be vandalism. Also, the final words in the paragraph seem to suggest that Big Oil (which is an anti-business term) had something for which to be "on the hook" in the first place -- even if meant to come from a liberal perspective. JustinSatyr 14:38, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Propose the exact wording you want, and I'll edit the protected page on your behalf. --Ed Poor Talk 16:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Addition to first myth

Liberals also use population explosion to fallaciously "prove" anthropogenic global warming. ChrisGT90 23:09, 26 June 2010 (EDT)


My changes

Here is an explanation of why I chose to remove the unsourced items that I did (in the table's second column, "belief" refers to whether the item is a liberal belief, and "myth" refers to whether the item is, in fact, false):

Item Aspects challenged Explanation
"The claim that environmental regulation saves lives." myth To say that environmental regulations do not save lives is an extraordinary claim, one that ought to be well sourced. Although I am not an expert in this field, the evidence I have found indicates that environmental regulations (especially the Clean Air Act) do, in fact, save lives [5], [6]
"There is no voter fraud, it's about the GOP wanting to prevent people from voting." belief, myth I don't think any liberal seriously believes that there are zero instances of voter fraud. A more accurate statement of what liberals believe would be "There is very little in-person impersonation fraud at the polls; it's about the GOP wanting to prevent people from voting." As to whether the revised statement is a myth, there is evidence for both halves: [7] (10 cases of in-person impersonation fraud nationwide in 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections), [8] (Pennsylvania GOP leader Mike Turzai saying that "voter ID ... is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania"), [9] (Pennsylvania Republican Party chair attributed decline in margin of Obama's victory from 2008 to 2012 in part to voter ID)
"The claim that human beings are beginning to overpopulate." myth The human population has been growing at an unprecedented rate, and although it is hard to determine exactly what the effects of the increased population are, in 1994, fifty-eight scientific academies cited effects of a large human population on Earth's resources as a problem. [10]
"The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries." myth The Flynn effect actually suggests that IQ increases over time, although whether it is true is debatable. Today's human brains may be more adapted for today's problem-solving-focused world than the memory-intensive world a few centuries back. [11]
"The claim that abortion and breast cancer are unrelated." myth The scientific evidence suggests no evidence of a relation between abortion and breast cancer. See articles I cited to on Talk:American Government Lecture Seven.
"despite the fact that the scientific community rejects this view" (of a gay gene) myth PBS Frontline in 2000: "Though the outcome of the 'gay gene' debate is uncertain, the very fact of the debate is evidence of great change: The prevailing scientific view of the fundamental nature of homosexuality has undergone a signficant [sic] evolution in the last several decades." [12]
"They claim that humans and apes have a common ancestor" belief, myth I don't think belief in human origins is particularly a conservative vs. liberal issue, as I have seen people who believe this statement to be true from both sides of the political spectrum. As to the truth of this statement, I am not about to argue with Conservapedia on what appears to be an entrenched position the site has on evolution, but I will point out the following resources: [13], [14]

Flat Earth

Maybe the Flat Earth Myth should be add.--JoeyJ 15:46, 26 July 2014 (EDT)