Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-05-04T10:27:45Z

HoraceM: /* Comments on the above */

Some real problems here.

* global warming must be caused by man
(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)
* providing government health care for all will reduce illness
(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)
* the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)
* the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!
(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples.
"taking away guns will prevent gun crime"
:This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.
"global warming must be caused by man"
:This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it ''is'' caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.
"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"
:This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.
"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"
:Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.
"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
:I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.
"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"
:This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?
Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Entry confirmed ==

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And [[Michael Moore]] and others make a mint off of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to [[atheists]]. And you've found no error with the statement about [[global warming]] in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]]

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think [[Michael Moore]] does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a [[liberal]] appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm sorry, DoctorCB, I'm new here, and don't know much about running debates. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I won't back down from my conservative principles. If there is a consensus that I am in the wrong, I will stop editing this page. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]]
::::Not at all Sir, I nevel meant to imply that you do back down from your principles, I had no umbridge with you, and I would never ask that you stop editing with the dictates of your worldview. I would also like to point out that no matter what the popular opnion, there is rarely ever a wrong point in an open minded debate, simply one you don't agree with. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== ah yes, more craaaaaaziness ==

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==
"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Good lordy ==

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Liberals did. They taught the [[Piltdown Man]] in [[public school]] for ''decades''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yeah, key word: ''did'', as in "we don't anymore". Piltdown Man was just a nasty trick perpetrated by someone in the scientific community, and they got caught. Nebraska Man was an honest mistake, as humans and pigs do have similar teeth, and that even was resolved. This article declares that liberals still believe both of them, and this is simply not true. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, yeah, ha ha ha, liberals just misled '''''an entire generation''''' of public school students by forcing them to accept the Piltdown Man as true to get high scores on exams. The article doesn't say liberals still believe this untruth, but they surely did for nearly a half century and they never apologized for misleading so many students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::You act like liberals had known it was false the whole time. Only a few people did at the time, and they didn't want this taught. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Let us ignore the Liberals and their Lies==

Once again the [[Liberal]]s ignore their own [[Liberal gullibility]] in this talk page. Making full use of their arsenal of [[Liberal tricks]] and [[Liberal tools]], the [[Liberal]]s wish to engage us, to prevent us from spending precious time in building this fine American [[Encyclopedia]]. While the [[Liberal]] engages in [[Liberal style|obstructionist tactics]], we take it all in and attempt to reason with the [[Liberal]]. Our counter argument is based on the premise that a [[Liberal]] has rational, justifiable beliefs, but this [[Liberal logic]] will not be entertained on this encyclopedia, and if you don't like you can get out. BS [[User:BS|BS]] 16:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

That is the most paranoid, nasty and downright scariest thing I have ever read. Perhaps more meds? Look, BS, I am no liberal but the list as it stands is mostly made up of peoples beliefs, not peoples gullibilty. It is the fundamental flaw of the whole article. Some people actually dont believe in God nor atheists. Liberal Logic? These terms make no sense
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, we could fill Giant Stadium with [[liberals]] who say "I am no liberal." See point 1 in [[liberal denial]]. I'm bet you support [[censorship]] of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], and [[Barack Obama]] for president. If you don't think that's [[liberal]], then you're inventing your own meaning of the word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You know nothing about me so quit your accusations.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:39, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Instead of your wild accusations why not focus on the issues I brought up on the article?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:''"I'm bet "'' -> I'm hope you teach your homeschool classes to write better than that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bet you get called on that as Liberal Style re: Mockery (despite the fact Aschlafly corrects others grammer all the time as an attempt to discredit others) then blocked.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:52, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:I'm bet you may be right. I'm also bet that I'm not going to be all that I'm crushed about it. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:55, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Mockery. Another example of the detestable Liberal Style. Fellows, either help build this [[Conservapedia|fine American encyclopedia]] or get out. If you don't like it you can just get out. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:15, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The earlier version of the article wasn't clear why such positions were gullible, I have made the article more clear to explain why such views are gullible -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't you see you are playing into the [[Liberal]]s hands Deborah? These [[Liberal]]s don't deserve your kindness. Let us ignore their [[Liberalism]]. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I think a lot of it is false liberal outrage, a tactic which they often use to attack conservatives. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly LyleB! The [[Liberal]]s on this site, detestable and wicked and evil as they are, constantly try to waylay this project to make it fit their sick [[Liberal]] goals. These [[Liberal]]s should be banned en masse. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:56, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==The Obama media flap over Islam==

Obama is not a Muslim, although his father may have been. ''Insight'' magazine uncovered a plot by the Clinton campaign to smear him; they had to fire 2 or 3 staffers after being exposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Piltdown man==
Why do you keep changing it Asachlafly? It wasnt liberals the believed in piltdown. It was all scientists (at least all that believed in evolution). Not JUST liberals. Where is your reference?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, just because carter says he saw a UFO doesnt mean he believes in intelligent life in outer space. He saw a Unidentified Flying saucer (or at least something he could not identify). Not all liberals believe in UFOs. this is getting ridiculous.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're not making any sense. No one claims that '''all''' [[liberal]]s believe in this stuff. But many do, and virtually all liberals have fallen for several of the items listed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 2 May 2008 (EDT)u

Aschlafly, it is you that are not making sense. Evolutionists believed in the Piltdown man. Everyone ''except'' those who dont believe in evolution believed so you entry makes no sense unless you change it to evolutionists. Secondly your entry on UFO's states ''one'' person who says he saw ''something''.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==UFOs?==
Could you give me even a shread of evidence that it is only/predominently "Liberals" that believe to have seen UFOs? By and large, it seems to me anyway, people in less populated area claim to see UFOs far more often. It is well noted that the further you get away from "Big City Elites" the more conservative the population is. Look were all the Red vs Blue States are. It is actually more likly that somewho votes Republican would be a person to see a UFO. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]]
:[http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/196-ufo-hotspots-map/ Here] is a map of UFO sightings they tend to be on the Western side of America mostly "New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the three coastal states and Nevada" out of these 9 only 3 returned Democrat in the last presidential election. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Thats a very good point. I suggest the entry be removed and added to the jimmy carter page (if not already there)
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Another perspective from the apathetic-liberal==
Humans do contribute to "global warming", but so do a plethora of other things (ie. cows and volcano eruptions). I think that global warming is just a fancy name for pollution. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

UFOs.. weather balloons and hallucinations at most. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: But the issue is whether the human "pollution" is causing the earth's global temperatures to rise to destructive levels. There is a [[leftist]] agenda to increase government control, and limit energy consumption, which results in loss of jobs, which results in more government control, etc., etc.

: Personally, I don't see human pollution causing a rise in the global temperature. It strikes me as kind of silly, frankly. The scientific data show that the earth's temperatures have always fluctuated, and there is nothing special going on recently. Last summer was actually mild, I thought.

: As to [[UFO]]s, [[liberal]] [[Jimmy Carter]], his [[liberal]] scientific adviser [[Carl Sagan]], and many other [[leftists]] were convinced there is intelligent life in outer space, and spent billions looking for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Friends in environmental club--which is very strange group of people--have told me global warming is loosely defined as such occurrences like snow in April and 80oF temperatures in October. So, having a mild summer can be said, by the environmentalists, to be a result of global warming.

::Human "pollution" is adding a minimal amount to the global pollution. Volcano eruptions seem to cause a major "rip in the atmosphere" compared to NYC, LA, and Hong Kong, which are populated with cars producing an insane amount of pollution.

::Just some random "information":
*The moon landing was real (in my opinion, do you think it was real?)... no preexisting life there.
*We explore Mars with little drones, maybe we find some garbage, but that's probably just from one of our space missions because we always dump a lot of garbage in outer space.
*Distant satellites take picture of Jupiter and Neptune. I don't see any signs showing anyone/anything looking for us. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, I'm learning. A mild summer can signify ... global warming in the views of some. That's news to me. As to life in outer space, I agree it's absurd but many [[liberals]] have believed in it with religious fervor, and wasted billions on looking for it. That's gullibility. The moon landing was real and brought back rocks disproving another liberal theory: that the moon had come from the earth. It didn't, and [[atheists]] have no plausible explanation for the moon now. See [[Moon Origins]]. But don't expect [[public school]] students to learn the truth!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::: So, what's your theory on it? A captured asteroid? That seems to be the most logical explanation, at this point. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::Kektk your intial argument against extraterrestrial life forms is we did not see fully developed aliens in the first 4 planets we stopped by? You ofcause overlooked the fact that any Carl Sagen often stressed that any extraterrestrial life form would most likly be just microbes (a bit hard to see from space). Also Christian apologist often harp on about the earth being in a habital zone and hence showing God's wisdom in that is were he put the plant with life on it (almost the equivalent to staring at fire and saying is it not good that the fire is hot enough to burn wood). Yet you list several plants outside a habital zone. These millions of dollars "wasted" to search for extraterrestrial life forms arn't to "find alians" it is to establish whether life is unique to earth or not?

:::::Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it.

:::::As for global warming whilst there are disenters, their existence dosn't disprove global warming anymore than the existence of people who support the hypothesis proves it correct.

:::::Liberal gullibilty to me seems to be disagreeing with you on things you closed your mind about several years ago. ETLF and the Moon to support weakly supported YEC views and global warming to support your ... I have no idea why people find the fact that humans affected the earth we live on so hard to believe. It can't be economic views as some people are using GW to make piles of cash in the free market look at the companies making hybrid cars. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''Comment''': We have moved away from the main point that you claim it is Liberals that claim to see UFOs please address my point under the heading '''UFOs?'''. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:13, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying Aschlafly if it is wrong that the moon came from earth it must have been god?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, do your homework. Carl Sagan and many other suppossed 'leftists' believe in life in outer space but Sagan did not believe that they were visiting us via UFOs. Also I dont know why you are so sure there isnt life elsewhere.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why is life in outer space absurd? Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Life in outer Space==

Its absurd to completely reject the idea that there may be life in outer space. We don't know whether there is or not. I am tempted to say this list isn't of Liberal gullibility, this article is worthless and should be thrown into the bin. It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the prejudices of a very bitter man. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:52, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Comments on the above ==

Thanks for the comments by [[liberals]] demonstrating how they still think there is life in outer space. This confirms the point in the entry here.

One of the comments above stated, "Also as far as I understood the rocks from the moonlanding found that the moon was formed by the collision from the earth and some large objects, I could be wrong if you can give me evidence I would like to see it." You are wrong, and I did give you a cite: [[Moon Origins]]. But I don't expect you to pursue it with an open mind because, unfortunately, [[deliberate ignorance]] is classic [[liberal style]]. [[Liberals]] love saying things like, "I've never heard that," and then refuse to look into it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Ahhh I think you'll find conservatives believing that there is life out there too. It is entirely possible. And you never answered how you ''know'' there isnt?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:49, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Andy you have sucessfully railroaded this talk page away from the article. Your claim that Liberal's claim to see UFOs (different from the possible exsistence of ETLF) exclusivly/more often than conservative something you still have not addressed is the map showing the distribution of UFO sighting remain largly in Republican states and mostly in rural areas were Republican voting is higher.

:Also you tend to treat YEC as a default stance. You think that by shooting down alternative theories yours then becomes right. However the moon was created it was not placed there magically 6,000 years ago. It is older than that any decent amount of effort would find you that. For starters there are human culters that go back further than that. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 21:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:'''Comment''' Did you read all the [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/program.pdf talk abstracts]? Most were supportive of the GIT and the first invited speakers on timing intial statement was that it is well established the Earth is 6.57 billion years old but dating the moon is harder yada yada... You have been selective with your choice of references and again showning yourself wrong in your claim scientist are censoring opposing views in that the disenters were invited to the conference in order to present the papers you cite. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

You are such a dud Andy. Why do you yap on about liberals this, liberals that, and then handily link to the Liberal article? You are a vile, pathetic piece of shit who gives conservatism a bad name. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 06:27, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:British National Party

2008-05-03T22:56:01Z

HoraceM:

I removed falsehoods from this article. Conservapedia shouldn't allow falsehoods. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Not falsehoods according to the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/BNP_uk_manifesto.pdf BNP's own published manifesto] [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm talking about reality. In reality, the party no longer supports forced repatriation of coloured peoples. I personally find that to be a stain on our parties conscience, but it is no longer the case. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Please Fox, lets not taint us with the anti-semitic brush. We are not anti-semitic. Look up Patricia Richardson. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal gullibility

2008-05-03T22:52:43Z

HoraceM: /* Another perspective from the apathetic-liberal */ This article is an example of bitterness.

Some real problems here.

* global warming must be caused by man
(I think the consensus is that man is adding to the probem)
* providing government health care for all will reduce illness
(Again, you cant reduce illness but you can help people by giving them health care - it works where I am from)
* the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
(Not all liberals are athiests - some conservatives are. Also hindus dont believe the bible or athiests)
* the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!
(many people were fooled by this)

In light of this the article should be tossed or renamed.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==

I'm not going to touch the ideological thing, but you might want to pick better examples.
"taking away guns will prevent gun crime"
:This is a pretty reasonable belief, even if you don't agree with it and think it is not correct. It doesn't seem gullible, although a good case can be made that it is incorrect.
"global warming must be caused by man"
:This seems like a misstatement... rather than "must be," liberals just believe it ''is'' caused by man. It might not have been, but the science seems to support that. Again, you might think differently, but liberals are listening to the IPCC and National Academy of Science and so on... regardless of whether or not those scientists are all lying, liberals can hardly be blamed for believing them, since few people are qualified to judge ice core data themselves.
"providing government health care for all will reduce illness"
:This also seems fairly reasonable, given that universal health care would hopefully focus on wellness rather than only treating illnesses. I am not sure if UHC is a good thing or not, but a case can be made for it that is based on logic.
"government programs can reduce poverty by giving more money away"
:Redistribution of wealth might be something you have an issue with, and fairly so, but it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poor in government benefits will reduce poverty, even if it does not do so very effectively or is not ethically correct. Again, a reasonable position that you just happen to disagree with.
"the Holy Bible is not true, but the writings of atheists are
:I am not sure what this means. Have atheists written some myths and claimed they were true or something? Obviously if there was some question Bertrand Russell wrote something, it would not be assumed that his authorship was true automatically... is this what is meant? At the least, this needs strong clarification.
"the Piltdown Man is the missing link, and so was the Nebraska Man!"
:This would seem to be another case of laypeople believing scientists because they are not qualified to judge for themselves. If it turned out that string theory was a hoax, would I be gullible for believing it might be true based on the assessments of physicists?
Some better examples, or clearer writing, is probably needed, Andy.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:48, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Entry confirmed ==

The comments by AdenJ and TomMoore above, claiming that the liberal statements in the entry are true, simply underscore the point of this entry: many liberals fall for the falsehoods. And [[Michael Moore]] and others make a mint off of them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy andy andy, duh. You obviously didnt read what I wrote. For example - its not just liberals that dont believe in the bible, I dont know many Hindus that believe it. Also it is the consensus the man ADDS to the problem of global warming. Hence this needs to be rewritten.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're clueless. Hindus are quite receptive to the Bible, far more so than they are to [[atheists]]. And you've found no error with the statement about [[global warming]] in the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, receptive but probably not believing. I'll rewrite if you like
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]]

While obviously I can't demand you do so, it would be nice for you to choose at least one of my points above and answer it, so we can discuss our varying points of view. I feel that most of these are inaccurately stated (a la strawman) or reasonable opinions, and accordingly it is needlessly contemptuous to mock them.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

TomMoore, all it takes is a little discernment to understand that all of these points apply to at least 95% of all liberals. I'm not trying to be ugly, but if you would take off the blue democratic lense which you are looking through, you would see the validity of all the points that have been raised. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 22:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

:That actually is a pretty ugly thing to say, attacking me rather than addressing the points. I don't appreciate it.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:This seems like a head I win, tails you lose situation. You post something which makes allegations agaist a whole group of people. You do so with no sources other than your own opinion, and when people debate you claim vindication and victory. How can a party debate when every counterpoint is met with "That proves my point, I win." If one were to post an article claiming that "Conservatives have to respond to every critism levied against them," and someone reponds in the negative, the original poster could easily claim victory as the Conservative just proved their point. This seems like a childish way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 23:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals. I can't be held accountable for their decision. I believe in personal responsibility, do you? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, LyleB. In further response to DrCB, I didn't expect liberals here to fully defend the falsities. They could have claimed that thinking liberals don't (didn't) fall for the falsehoods. I don't think [[Michael Moore]] does believe much of the stuff he peddles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Aschlafly. I look foward to adding to this site(once finals are over, I am pretty busy right now!) [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 23:47, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

::So instead of responding to any of me comments, you return with "It's their fault because their Liberals." through in the appriopriate buzz word about personal responsibility and drinks are on the house. That may make someone feel good by self congratulation, but it's no way to run a debate. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't know who you're quoting "Doctor", but your name fits the mold of a [[liberal]] appearing to have authority that he doesn't really have. See point 3 in [[liberal style]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm quoting LyleB who said "I think liberals decided to put themselves into that situation when they decided to become liberals." And I'm sorry, Aschlafly.... I simply pointed out that with one simply response, everything I said was left alone. On top of that, I find your use of quotation marks around my name rather patronizing. Would it be appropriate for me to address you as Conservapedia's resident "lawyer?" Of course not, and that's why I would not do such a thing. On top of the matter, I never onced claimed to have any authority other than being a party to a debate in which no debate is actually taking place because the other party claimed victory before the start. And if we want to talk about the so called Liberal Style, how about number 23? You seem to revel in constant mockery Liberals, which translates to anyone you disagree with, no matter what their true opinions. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 15:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm sorry, DoctorCB, I'm new here, and don't know much about running debates. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I won't back down from my conservative principles. If there is a consensus that I am in the wrong, I will stop editing this page. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]]
::::Not at all Sir, I nevel meant to imply that you do back down from your principles, I had no umbridge with you, and I would never ask that you stop editing with the dictates of your worldview. I would also like to point out that no matter what the popular opnion, there is rarely ever a wrong point in an open minded debate, simply one you don't agree with. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|The Doctor is In]] 16:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== ah yes, more craaaaaaziness ==

Indeed Obama does have ties to Islam. His father is a Muslim. Doesnt mean he is though.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion==
"Liberals will believe anything that Obama tells them, yet accuse Christians of having blind faith", and "Liberals oppose the War on Terrorism, but want us to intervene in Darfur" are examples of liberal positions or hypocrisy or mendacity or whatever, but not gullibility. Those examples need to be reworded or something; the first one would work if you lop off the second half, not sure about the latter. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. Please try to improve the phrases mentioned. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think you are right too, Ross. I will try to improve the first. Do we have a liberal hypocrisy page to try the second one on? [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 12:16, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== Good lordy ==

Andy, do you honestly think that liberals still think Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man are real?! Guess what—we don't. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 15:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: Liberals did. They taught the [[Piltdown Man]] in [[public school]] for ''decades''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yeah, key word: ''did'', as in "we don't anymore". Piltdown Man was just a nasty trick perpetrated by someone in the scientific community, and they got caught. Nebraska Man was an honest mistake, as humans and pigs do have similar teeth, and that even was resolved. This article declares that liberals still believe both of them, and this is simply not true. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, yeah, ha ha ha, liberals just misled '''''an entire generation''''' of public school students by forcing them to accept the Piltdown Man as true to get high scores on exams. The article doesn't say liberals still believe this untruth, but they surely did for nearly a half century and they never apologized for misleading so many students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::You act like liberals had known it was false the whole time. Only a few people did at the time, and they didn't want this taught. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Let us ignore the Liberals and their Lies==

Once again the [[Liberal]]s ignore their own [[Liberal gullibility]] in this talk page. Making full use of their arsenal of [[Liberal tricks]] and [[Liberal tools]], the [[Liberal]]s wish to engage us, to prevent us from spending precious time in building this fine American [[Encyclopedia]]. While the [[Liberal]] engages in [[Liberal style|obstructionist tactics]], we take it all in and attempt to reason with the [[Liberal]]. Our counter argument is based on the premise that a [[Liberal]] has rational, justifiable beliefs, but this [[Liberal logic]] will not be entertained on this encyclopedia, and if you don't like you can get out. BS [[User:BS|BS]] 16:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

That is the most paranoid, nasty and downright scariest thing I have ever read. Perhaps more meds? Look, BS, I am no liberal but the list as it stands is mostly made up of peoples beliefs, not peoples gullibilty. It is the fundamental flaw of the whole article. Some people actually dont believe in God nor atheists. Liberal Logic? These terms make no sense
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, we could fill Giant Stadium with [[liberals]] who say "I am no liberal." See point 1 in [[liberal denial]]. I'm bet you support [[censorship]] of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], and [[Barack Obama]] for president. If you don't think that's [[liberal]], then you're inventing your own meaning of the word.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

You know nothing about me so quit your accusations.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:39, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Instead of your wild accusations why not focus on the issues I brought up on the article?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:''"I'm bet "'' -> I'm hope you teach your homeschool classes to write better than that. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bet you get called on that as Liberal Style re: Mockery (despite the fact Aschlafly corrects others grammer all the time as an attempt to discredit others) then blocked.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:52, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:I'm bet you may be right. I'm also bet that I'm not going to be all that I'm crushed about it. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:55, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Mockery. Another example of the detestable Liberal Style. Fellows, either help build this [[Conservapedia|fine American encyclopedia]] or get out. If you don't like it you can just get out. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:15, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The earlier version of the article wasn't clear why such positions were gullible, I have made the article more clear to explain why such views are gullible -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 17:46, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't you see you are playing into the [[Liberal]]s hands Deborah? These [[Liberal]]s don't deserve your kindness. Let us ignore their [[Liberalism]]. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:48, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I think a lot of it is false liberal outrage, a tactic which they often use to attack conservatives. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Exactly LyleB! The [[Liberal]]s on this site, detestable and wicked and evil as they are, constantly try to waylay this project to make it fit their sick [[Liberal]] goals. These [[Liberal]]s should be banned en masse. [[User:BradleySaunderson|BradleySaunderson]] 17:56, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==The Obama media flap over Islam==

Obama is not a Muslim, although his father may have been. ''Insight'' magazine uncovered a plot by the Clinton campaign to smear him; they had to fire 2 or 3 staffers after being exposed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Piltdown man==
Why do you keep changing it Asachlafly? It wasnt liberals the believed in piltdown. It was all scientists (at least all that believed in evolution). Not JUST liberals. Where is your reference?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, just because carter says he saw a UFO doesnt mean he believes in intelligent life in outer space. He saw a Unidentified Flying saucer (or at least something he could not identify). Not all liberals believe in UFOs. this is getting ridiculous.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, you're not making any sense. No one claims that '''all''' [[liberal]]s believe in this stuff. But many do, and virtually all liberals have fallen for several of the items listed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:59, 2 May 2008 (EDT)u

Aschlafly, it is you that are not making sense. Evolutionists believed in the Piltdown man. Everyone ''except'' those who dont believe in evolution believed so you entry makes no sense unless you change it to evolutionists. Secondly your entry on UFO's states ''one'' person who says he saw ''something''.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:02, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==UFOs?==
Could you give me even a shread of evidence that it is only/predominently "Liberals" that believe to have seen UFOs? By and large, it seems to me anyway, people in less populated area claim to see UFOs far more often. It is well noted that the further you get away from "Big City Elites" the more conservative the population is. Look were all the Red vs Blue States are. It is actually more likly that somewho votes Republican would be a person to see a UFO. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]]
:[http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/196-ufo-hotspots-map/ Here] is a map of UFO sightings they tend to be on the Western side of America mostly "New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the three coastal states and Nevada" out of these 9 only 3 returned Democrat in the last presidential election. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Thats a very good point. I suggest the entry be removed and added to the jimmy carter page (if not already there)
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:20, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Another perspective from the apathetic-liberal==
Humans do contribute to "global warming", but so do a plethora of other things (ie. cows and volcano eruptions). I think that global warming is just a fancy name for pollution. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

UFOs.. weather balloons and hallucinations at most. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:11, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: But the issue is whether the human "pollution" is causing the earth's global temperatures to rise to destructive levels. There is a [[leftist]] agenda to increase government control, and limit energy consumption, which results in loss of jobs, which results in more government control, etc., etc.

: Personally, I don't see human pollution causing a rise in the global temperature. It strikes me as kind of silly, frankly. The scientific data show that the earth's temperatures have always fluctuated, and there is nothing special going on recently. Last summer was actually mild, I thought.

: As to [[UFO]]s, [[liberal]] [[Jimmy Carter]], his [[liberal]] scientific adviser [[Carl Sagan]], and many other [[leftists]] were convinced there is intelligent life in outer space, and spent billions looking for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Friends in environmental club--which is very strange group of people--have told me global warming is loosely defined as such occurrences like snow in April and 80oF temperatures in October. So, having a mild summer can be said, by the environmentalists, to be a result of global warming.

::Human "pollution" is adding a minimal amount to the global pollution. Volcano eruptions seem to cause a major "rip in the atmosphere" compared to NYC, LA, and Hong Kong, which are populated with cars producing an insane amount of pollution.

::Just some random "information":
*The moon landing was real (in my opinion, do you think it was real?)... no preexisting life there.
*We explore Mars with little drones, maybe we find some garbage, but that's probably just from one of our space missions because we always dump a lot of garbage in outer space.
*Distant satellites take picture of Jupiter and Neptune. I don't see any signs showing anyone/anything looking for us. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 13:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, I'm learning. A mild summer can signify ... global warming in the views of some. That's news to me. As to life in outer space, I agree it's absurd but many [[liberals]] have believed in it with religious fervor, and wasted billions on looking for it. That's gullibility. The moon landing was real and brought back rocks disproving another liberal theory: that the moon had come from the earth. It didn't, and [[atheists]] have no plausible explanation for the moon now. See [[Moon Origins]]. But don't expect [[public school]] students to learn the truth!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying Aschlafly if it is wrong that the moon came from earth it must have been god?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, do your homework. Carl Sagan and many other suppossed 'leftists' believe in life in outer space but Sagan did not believe that they were visiting us via UFOs. Also I dont know why you are so sure there isnt life elsewhere.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Why is life in outer space absurd? Usual disclaimers apply. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 17:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Life in outer Space==

Its absurd to completely reject the idea that there may be life in outer space. We don't know whether there is or not. I am tempted to say this list isn't of Liberal gullibility, this article is worthless and should be thrown into the bin. It serves no purpose other than to perpetuate the prejudices of a very bitter man. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:52, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:British National Party

2008-05-03T22:45:26Z

HoraceM:

British National Party

2008-05-03T22:40:46Z

HoraceM:

The '''British National Party (BNP)''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] political party. Though it is generally described as being on the right wing of politics, it espouses a number of fiscally left-wing policies. For example, although it is favour of repatriating non-white people from the UK, it also favours substantial government involvement in the [[economy]]. Other BNP policies include the reintroduction of [[capital punishment]] for murder, rape and paedophilia, the introduction of corporal punishment for vandals and 'hoodies' and the withdrawal of the UK from the [[European Union]]. The BNP also supports the recriminalisation of homosexuality.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the BNP had strong ties to Neo-Nazi and anti-semitic groups. However the party has now accepted Jewish members and instead focuses on the 'islamification' of Britain and is actively hostile towards Muslims and Islam in general. Chairman Nick Griffin described Islam as a 'wicked, vicious faith'.

The BNP's representation in the UK is entirely at the local level. It has no representatives in [[Parliament]], nor in any of Britain's regional legislatures or the [[European Parliament]].

The BNP's current leader is [[Nick Griffin]].

== External Links ==
[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060126/ai_n16041644]
[http://www.bnp.org.uk/]

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Fascists]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]

Talk:British National Party

2008-05-03T22:12:01Z

HoraceM: New page: I removed falsehoods from this article. Conservapedia shouldn't allow falsehoods. ~~~~

I removed falsehoods from this article. Conservapedia shouldn't allow falsehoods. [[User:HoraceM|HoraceM]] 18:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

British National Party

2008-05-03T22:11:36Z

HoraceM:

The '''British National Party (BNP)''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] political party. Though it is generally described as being on the extreme right or [[fascism|fascist]] wing of politics, it espouses a number of fiscally left-wing policies. For example, although it was formally in favour of repatriating non-white people from the UK, it now simply wants to stop immigration (A non white person was elected to a local council in 2006 on the BNP ticket) it also favours substantial government involvement in the [[economy]]. Other BNP policies include the reintroduction of [[capital punishment]] for murder, rape and paedophilia, the introduction of corporal punishment for vandals and 'hoodies' and the withdrawal of the UK from the [[European Union]].

During the 1980s and 1990s, the BNP had strong ties to Neo-Nazi and anti-semitic groups. However the party has now accepted Jewish members and instead focuses on the 'islamification' of Britain and is actively hostile towards Muslims and Islam in general. Chairman Nick Griffin described Islam as a 'wicked, vicious faith'.

The BNP's representation in the UK is entirely at the local level. It has no representatives in [[Parliament]], nor in any of Britain's regional legislatures or the [[European Parliament]].

The BNP's current leader is [[Nick Griffin]].

== External Links ==
[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060126/ai_n16041644]
[http://www.bnp.org.uk/]

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Fascists]]
[[Category:Hate Groups]]