Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal myths

2008-10-05T20:53:32Z

Michaeljw:

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? [[User:DanH|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? [[User:HelpJazz|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. [[User:Graham|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? [[User:HelpJazz|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... [[User:Graham|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]
[[Image:Chart1 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
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. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]

: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? [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]
::Libertarians do ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|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):
[[Image:Table 3 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
* 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.[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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 :-) [[User:Graham|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. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:Graham|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 [[User:Graham|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!??? [[User:Graham|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.--[[User:MCrowe|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.--[[User:Jpatt|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.[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/29brooks.html?em&ex=1217563200&en=e296ab54d60b33ed&ei=5087%0A] 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''

:: -[[User:DinsdaleP|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.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent)

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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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 -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | 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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 16:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
::: In October 2004, George W. Bush came out in [http://www.americablog.com/2006/10/breaking-new-jersey-sup-ct-adopts.html 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."
:::-[[User:DinsdaleP|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 -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | 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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. [[User:EngelUmpocker|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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.--[[User:Jpatt|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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.--[[User:Jpatt|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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.--[[User:Jpatt|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I'm just pointing out that energy security won't come from drilling is a myth--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:04, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

==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 [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/20/national/main4366366.shtml 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, [http://chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-07/31/content_6893272.htm been unsuccessful]. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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.

Hollywood values

2008-10-02T19:26:30Z

Michaeljw: /* Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves */

'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant [[drug|drug use]], extramarital sex, sexually-transmitted [[disease]], lawlessness and death. A poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.

There have been, however, a handful of prominent people who whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and [[Independence Day]] being recent examples.

Hollywood values can include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]]
* [[accountability]]
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* normal behavioural boundaries and values of human decency

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18845.aspx</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[Bix Beiderbecke]], 28, [[alcoholism]]
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*Stephen Clark, 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref>
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, auto accident (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*Lee Grivas, 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_en_ce/obit_ledger</ref> "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive"
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications"<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/02/13/entertainment/e162146S51.DTL</ref>
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose cocaine and heroin
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]]
*[[George Reeves]], 45, suicide
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, pedophile movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref>
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43. Drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual mores characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Example include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* [[Freddie Mercury]] of the rock group Queen, notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:

* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref>
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been arrested again on an unrelated charge.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], msnbc, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offence committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "Committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.<ref>Police confirm George Michael arrest [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/75904.stmBBC]</ref> Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession.
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk in driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuates [[liberal]]-driven falsehoods:

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepherd is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:<fill in>

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

*[[Recount]]
: The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republican are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref>

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.

== Offensive Behavior ==

* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref>

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>

The following have checked into a different facilities for psychological problems:

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and guns-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine and was date-raped] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

==Moral depravity==
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].

==Using appearances to promote themselves and their causes or air their pet peeves==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. Penn State's Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainments industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programmes that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cess-pit of licence and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the tv series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''. The movie ''Forrest Gump'' was a clumsy attempt to smear conservatives as having learning difficulties.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

==See also==
*[[Supermodel]]s

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007

[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-09-29T18:45:11Z

Michaeljw: /* some points */

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::: I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Liberal friendship==
"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You ''can't'' be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

[[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint ==
# Win an argument through luck
# Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
# atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
# (me not learnded enough)
# ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
# death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
# it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
# no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
# Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
# No material thing is truly cool
# there is a shortage in piety
# disproving Christianity is for dummies
# kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
# (see #1)
# call someone a [[racist]] when they are a [[nepotist]]
# some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
# vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
# if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
# justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Claiming expertise==

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--[[User:Krishnapooja|Krishnapooja]] 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your examples are deficient because they do not represent ''claiming'' expertise beyond one's specialty. Philip Johnson does not claim special expertise, for example, beyond his legal profession. Rather, he provides compelling arguments for people to accept or reject based on the validity of his arguments, not his expertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:41, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
::How about Andy Schlafly, who claims to know more about medicine than MDs do? (Soooo getting banned for this one. NOBODY sasses the Schlafinator on how own blog and lives to tell about it.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 14:19, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

==Adding to the list==
Hey! I've got number 20! "Uses logic instead of relying on what the Bible/Ann Coulter/Tucker Carlson told them to do."
Does that sound like a fair addition, you know, considering the fact that this article already makes your work with this encyclopedia look ridiculous and childish? Grow up, guys. No one's going to take the conservative viewpoint seriously if you keep cranking out this drivel. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 16:06, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::As mean-spirited as that is, jparenti, I agree. This "list" should be removed for making conservatives look bad. But watch yourself because language like that will get you blocked in a hurry.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 17:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

==essay==

this is an opinion piece, and should therefore be labelled an essay.

==some points==

here are some flaws in some of these arguements.

1. "when did you stop beating your wife?" is conservapedia now pro-domestic violence? or do we just think its an ok thing to joke about.
2."pretend that atheism equals intelligence" does one automatically become unintelligent if they deny the existance of a deity?
3."live and let live-prayor in school" no liberal wants to stop people from praying freely. if you want to pray at home, at church/temple/mosque, or if you want to pray at school on your own time (i.e. not in a special block of time where everyone must pray) that is fine. the issue liberals have with school prayor is when it becomes a state-sanctioned activity.
4."it doesnt hurt to try" Abortion. no one treats abortion like it is something you try out, or that you dabble in. it's a medical procedure, sometimes traumatizing, like all medical procedures have the ability to be.
5."if you dont like it, dont watch it-whale killing" can someone please tell me how something inappropriate on tv amounts to the slaughter of a vital and extremely endangered species? i don't know if folks grasp this concept, but as fafr removed from nature as our society is, it still relies heavily on it. if species continue to go extinct at the rate they are, there is a potential for complete ecological collapse. forget global warming.

i dont really expect an honest reply, but let's see is someone can give a good answer to all of those points.

:''i dont really expect an honest reply'' is a splendid example of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' tactic, and anyone who suggests that using that well-worn phrase is an apologist for domestic violence is an imbecile. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:40, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

sorry for not knowing that phrase. but you refused to answer the rest of my arguments and just blocked me. do you have a response to anything else i said?
-[[user:michaeljw]]

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-09-28T14:11:13Z

Michaeljw:

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-09-28T13:58:56Z

Michaeljw: