Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal logic

2008-02-16T22:54:30Z

RJest: If it's nonsensical, it's not logical.

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument that has emotional appeal to a [[liberal]], but is nonsensical. Let's build a list:

* belief that a [[correlation]] (e.g., between atheism and suicide) can be disproved by a poor [[counterexample]] (e.g., one atheist who remained sane)
* [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth
* an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but saying a prayer in class can cause tremendous harm
* increasing spending by government must reduce poverty (no, dependency increases poverty)
* insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], and censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
* teaching [[abstinence]]-only does not reduce premarital sex
* widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, must not reduce crime
* that new laws reducing the gun ownership rate by 0.1% and a subsequent election of a left wing government are not linked
* that lack of [[government]] programs to rehabilitate criminals must not reduce crime
* that increasing taxes must increase government revenue (no, often people work less)

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

[[category:politics]][[Category:Liberals]]

User talk:RJest

2008-02-16T22:53:50Z

RJest: New page: This site kind of goes overboard on the name-calling, doesn't it? --~~~~

This site kind of goes overboard on the name-calling, doesn't it? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:53, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2008-02-16T22:52:50Z

RJest: Positive Liberal Contributions To Society

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 


This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-02-16T22:51:39Z

RJest: Sooo....

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)