Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bill Richardson

2007-08-21T00:49:33Z

Tester: /* Tainted cash */ changed to "campaign finance scandal"

[[Image:Bill rich color.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb]]
'''William Blaine "Bill" Richardson''' (born November 15, 1947) is the current Governor of the State of New Mexico. He previously has served as a Congressman, [[United States Ambassadors to the United Nations|United States Ambassador to the United Nations]], and [[United States Secretary of Energy|U.S. Secretary of Energy]].
=="Bad guys like me"==

In 1995 Richardson accompanied by [[Peter Bourne]] traveled to Baghdad for a meeting with [[Saddam Hussein]] to negotiate the release of two Americans at the request of the Clinton White House. Richardson and Bourne subsequently collaborated on a number of such efforts in [[Iran]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Kenya]], and [[North Korea]].<ref>*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire''], Carl Nagin, The New Yorker, 1998.</ref>

Richardson has led several missions to win the release of hostages. In his autobiography and interviews, he jokes that he was chosen for these missions because "bad guys like me."

==Richardson alleges Saddam has WMD==

On 11 February 11 1998 Bill Richardson told Margaret Warner of the PBS News Hour regarding [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]],

:''"We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX....Are we going to stand back and allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?"'' <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html Ambassador Bill Richardson, Online Focus], The News Hour Transcript, 11 February 1998.</ref>

As governor, Richardson continued activities in foreign policy. During the summer of 2003, he met with a delegation from [[North Korea]] to discuss its nuclear program.

==Tax policies==

Richardson was elected governor of New Mexico in November 2002. In his first year, Richardson proposed and won passage of Reagan-style "tax cuts to promote growth and investment" and passed a broad personal income tax cut and won a statewide special election to transfer money from the state's Permanent Fund to meet current expenses and projects. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030201-20051229re_/http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030219-071745-7704r New Mexico cuts taxes to stimulate economy], Phil Magers, United Press International, 2/19/2003.</ref>

==Accounting scandal==

The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 12 2005, that a New Mexico State Auditor concluded the Governor used "[[Enron]] type accounting" after his administration "circumvented the Legislature and proper accounting procedures when it opened the office in 2004 because it used money intended for the [http://www.state.nm.us/tax/ Taxation and Revenue Department] to pay for the governor's Albuquerque digs." The Governor had opened an office in Albuquerque five minutes from the airport to meet with potential out of state donors for his 2008 Presidential campaign without inconveniencing them with the two hour round trip to Sante Fe.

==Campaign finance scandal==
In April 2007 it was revealed Richardson had been the beneficiary of tainted cash donations to his campaign by several federally indicted high-level New Mexico conspirators who had bilked the State out of about $4 million for construction of a new courthouse in Abluquerque.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/politics/p153853D56.DTL&type=politics Scandal Players Donated to Richardson], By Barry Massey, Associated Press 2 April 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Bill Richardson|Articles about '''Bill Richardson''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
*[http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ Governor Bill Richardson's official website]
*[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?si=200232&c=20901#summary Richardson's Campaign Contributions]
*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire'', Carl Nagin, The New Yorker]
* [http://www.abqjournal.com/yesterday/07-10-2005homeAM.HTML ''Richardson Named As Likely Source of Wen Ho Lee Leak'', By Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal] (Sunday, July 10, 2005)
*[http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/lee/bellows18.pdf Final Report of the Attorney General's Review Team on the Handling of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Investigation] ("The Bellows Report") (May 2000)

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Richardson, William}}
[[Category:US Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Bill Richardson

2007-08-21T00:48:26Z

Tester: /* Enron accounting */ changed to "accounting scandal" -- a more objective title

[[Image:Bill rich color.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb]]
'''William Blaine "Bill" Richardson''' (born November 15, 1947) is the current Governor of the State of New Mexico. He previously has served as a Congressman, [[United States Ambassadors to the United Nations|United States Ambassador to the United Nations]], and [[United States Secretary of Energy|U.S. Secretary of Energy]].
=="Bad guys like me"==

In 1995 Richardson accompanied by [[Peter Bourne]] traveled to Baghdad for a meeting with [[Saddam Hussein]] to negotiate the release of two Americans at the request of the Clinton White House. Richardson and Bourne subsequently collaborated on a number of such efforts in [[Iran]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Kenya]], and [[North Korea]].<ref>*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire''], Carl Nagin, The New Yorker, 1998.</ref>

Richardson has led several missions to win the release of hostages. In his autobiography and interviews, he jokes that he was chosen for these missions because "bad guys like me."

==Richardson alleges Saddam has WMD==

On 11 February 11 1998 Bill Richardson told Margaret Warner of the PBS News Hour regarding [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]],

:''"We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX....Are we going to stand back and allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?"'' <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html Ambassador Bill Richardson, Online Focus], The News Hour Transcript, 11 February 1998.</ref>

As governor, Richardson continued activities in foreign policy. During the summer of 2003, he met with a delegation from [[North Korea]] to discuss its nuclear program.

==Tax policies==

Richardson was elected governor of New Mexico in November 2002. In his first year, Richardson proposed and won passage of Reagan-style "tax cuts to promote growth and investment" and passed a broad personal income tax cut and won a statewide special election to transfer money from the state's Permanent Fund to meet current expenses and projects. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030201-20051229re_/http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030219-071745-7704r New Mexico cuts taxes to stimulate economy], Phil Magers, United Press International, 2/19/2003.</ref>

==Accounting scandal==

The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 12 2005, that a New Mexico State Auditor concluded the Governor used "[[Enron]] type accounting" after his administration "circumvented the Legislature and proper accounting procedures when it opened the office in 2004 because it used money intended for the [http://www.state.nm.us/tax/ Taxation and Revenue Department] to pay for the governor's Albuquerque digs." The Governor had opened an office in Albuquerque five minutes from the airport to meet with potential out of state donors for his 2008 Presidential campaign without inconveniencing them with the two hour round trip to Sante Fe.

==Tainted cash==
In April 2007 it was revealed Richardson had been the beneficiary of tainted cash donations to his campaign by several federally indicted high-level New Mexico conspirators who had bilked the State out of about $4 million for construction of a new courthouse in Abluquerque.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/politics/p153853D56.DTL&type=politics Scandal Players Donated to Richardson], By Barry Massey, Associated Press 2 April 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Bill Richardson|Articles about '''Bill Richardson''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
*[http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ Governor Bill Richardson's official website]
*[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?si=200232&c=20901#summary Richardson's Campaign Contributions]
*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire'', Carl Nagin, The New Yorker]
* [http://www.abqjournal.com/yesterday/07-10-2005homeAM.HTML ''Richardson Named As Likely Source of Wen Ho Lee Leak'', By Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal] (Sunday, July 10, 2005)
*[http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/lee/bellows18.pdf Final Report of the Attorney General's Review Team on the Handling of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Investigation] ("The Bellows Report") (May 2000)

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Richardson, William}}
[[Category:US Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Bill Richardson

2007-08-21T00:47:34Z

Tester: /* Embraces trickle down */ change title to topic header, rather than political jargon

[[Image:Bill rich color.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb]]
'''William Blaine "Bill" Richardson''' (born November 15, 1947) is the current Governor of the State of New Mexico. He previously has served as a Congressman, [[United States Ambassadors to the United Nations|United States Ambassador to the United Nations]], and [[United States Secretary of Energy|U.S. Secretary of Energy]].
=="Bad guys like me"==

In 1995 Richardson accompanied by [[Peter Bourne]] traveled to Baghdad for a meeting with [[Saddam Hussein]] to negotiate the release of two Americans at the request of the Clinton White House. Richardson and Bourne subsequently collaborated on a number of such efforts in [[Iran]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Kenya]], and [[North Korea]].<ref>*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire''], Carl Nagin, The New Yorker, 1998.</ref>

Richardson has led several missions to win the release of hostages. In his autobiography and interviews, he jokes that he was chosen for these missions because "bad guys like me."

==Richardson alleges Saddam has WMD==

On 11 February 11 1998 Bill Richardson told Margaret Warner of the PBS News Hour regarding [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]],

:''"We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX....Are we going to stand back and allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?"'' <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html Ambassador Bill Richardson, Online Focus], The News Hour Transcript, 11 February 1998.</ref>

As governor, Richardson continued activities in foreign policy. During the summer of 2003, he met with a delegation from [[North Korea]] to discuss its nuclear program.

==Tax policies==

Richardson was elected governor of New Mexico in November 2002. In his first year, Richardson proposed and won passage of Reagan-style "tax cuts to promote growth and investment" and passed a broad personal income tax cut and won a statewide special election to transfer money from the state's Permanent Fund to meet current expenses and projects. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030201-20051229re_/http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030219-071745-7704r New Mexico cuts taxes to stimulate economy], Phil Magers, United Press International, 2/19/2003.</ref>

==Enron accounting==

The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 12 2005, that a New Mexico State Auditor concluded the Governor used "[[Enron]] type accounting" after his administration "circumvented the Legislature and proper accounting procedures when it opened the office in 2004 because it used money intended for the [http://www.state.nm.us/tax/ Taxation and Revenue Department] to pay for the governor's Albuquerque digs." The Governor had opened an office in Albuquerque five minutes from the airport to meet with potential out of state donors for his 2008 Presidential campaign without inconveniencing them with the two hour round trip to Sante Fe.

==Tainted cash==
In April 2007 it was revealed Richardson had been the beneficiary of tainted cash donations to his campaign by several federally indicted high-level New Mexico conspirators who had bilked the State out of about $4 million for construction of a new courthouse in Abluquerque.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/politics/p153853D56.DTL&type=politics Scandal Players Donated to Richardson], By Barry Massey, Associated Press 2 April 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Bill Richardson|Articles about '''Bill Richardson''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
*[http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ Governor Bill Richardson's official website]
*[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?si=200232&c=20901#summary Richardson's Campaign Contributions]
*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire'', Carl Nagin, The New Yorker]
* [http://www.abqjournal.com/yesterday/07-10-2005homeAM.HTML ''Richardson Named As Likely Source of Wen Ho Lee Leak'', By Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal] (Sunday, July 10, 2005)
*[http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/lee/bellows18.pdf Final Report of the Attorney General's Review Team on the Handling of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Investigation] ("The Bellows Report") (May 2000)

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Richardson, William}}
[[Category:US Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Bill Richardson

2007-08-21T00:46:29Z

Tester: /* Shaking hands with Saddam */

[[Image:Bill rich color.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb]]
'''William Blaine "Bill" Richardson''' (born November 15, 1947) is the current Governor of the State of New Mexico. He previously has served as a Congressman, [[United States Ambassadors to the United Nations|United States Ambassador to the United Nations]], and [[United States Secretary of Energy|U.S. Secretary of Energy]].
=="Bad guys like me"==

In 1995 Richardson accompanied by [[Peter Bourne]] traveled to Baghdad for a meeting with [[Saddam Hussein]] to negotiate the release of two Americans at the request of the Clinton White House. Richardson and Bourne subsequently collaborated on a number of such efforts in [[Iran]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], [[Kenya]], and [[North Korea]].<ref>*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire''], Carl Nagin, The New Yorker, 1998.</ref>

Richardson has led several missions to win the release of hostages. In his autobiography and interviews, he jokes that he was chosen for these missions because "bad guys like me."

==Richardson alleges Saddam has WMD==

On 11 February 11 1998 Bill Richardson told Margaret Warner of the PBS News Hour regarding [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]],

:''"We think this man is a threat to the international community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and future generations there with anthrax and VX....Are we going to stand back and allow Saddam Hussein to continue developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?"'' <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html Ambassador Bill Richardson, Online Focus], The News Hour Transcript, 11 February 1998.</ref>

As governor, Richardson continued activities in foreign policy. During the summer of 2003, he met with a delegation from [[North Korea]] to discuss its nuclear program.

==Embraces trickle down==

Richardson was elected governor of New Mexico in November 2002. In his first year, Richardson proposed and won passage of Reagan-style "tax cuts to promote growth and investment" and passed a broad personal income tax cut and won a statewide special election to transfer money from the state's Permanent Fund to meet current expenses and projects. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20030201-20051229re_/http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030219-071745-7704r New Mexico cuts taxes to stimulate economy], Phil Magers, United Press International, 2/19/2003.</ref>

==Enron accounting==

The Albuquerque Journal reported on June 12 2005, that a New Mexico State Auditor concluded the Governor used "[[Enron]] type accounting" after his administration "circumvented the Legislature and proper accounting procedures when it opened the office in 2004 because it used money intended for the [http://www.state.nm.us/tax/ Taxation and Revenue Department] to pay for the governor's Albuquerque digs." The Governor had opened an office in Albuquerque five minutes from the airport to meet with potential out of state donors for his 2008 Presidential campaign without inconveniencing them with the two hour round trip to Sante Fe.

==Tainted cash==
In April 2007 it was revealed Richardson had been the beneficiary of tainted cash donations to his campaign by several federally indicted high-level New Mexico conspirators who had bilked the State out of about $4 million for construction of a new courthouse in Abluquerque.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/02/politics/p153853D56.DTL&type=politics Scandal Players Donated to Richardson], By Barry Massey, Associated Press 2 April 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Bill Richardson|Articles about '''Bill Richardson''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==
*[http://www.governor.state.nm.us/ Governor Bill Richardson's official website]
*[http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/candidate.phtml?si=200232&c=20901#summary Richardson's Campaign Contributions]
*[http://www.hermanos.org/Backfire.htm ''Annals of Diplomacy Backfire'', Carl Nagin, The New Yorker]
* [http://www.abqjournal.com/yesterday/07-10-2005homeAM.HTML ''Richardson Named As Likely Source of Wen Ho Lee Leak'', By Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal] (Sunday, July 10, 2005)
*[http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/lee/bellows18.pdf Final Report of the Attorney General's Review Team on the Handling of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Investigation] ("The Bellows Report") (May 2000)

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT: Richardson, William}}
[[Category:US Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]

Biology

2007-08-16T23:18:43Z

Tester: /* Fields of Study */ eliminate section: can be covered in "history" section, as well as in the "biology" category

'''Biology''' is the scientific study of life.

It encompasses in it several fields, including [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, such studies as [[ecology]] and [[biochemistry]] fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The cellular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division and [[mitosis]].

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

The discoveries of the nineteenth century spurred the development of modern biology. Mendel's breeding experiments initiated [[genetics]]; the microscope initiated [[microbiology]]; and the synthesis of urea initiated [[biochemistry]]. In the early twentienth century the field of [[population genetics]] spurred the development of [[statistics]]. Advances in [[analytical chemistry]] permitted scientists to determine the structure of important biological molecules, such as DNA. These discoveries lead to the rapid development of [[molecular genetics]]. Coming full circle, these developments, combined with population genetic theory, is permitting scientists to examine the process of crop and animal domestication.

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

==Ethical implications==
[[Philosophy of science|Philosophers of science]] generally extrapolate from the principle of homeostasis to the conclusion that adaptive evolution is contrary to the nature of life, since it relies on the repeated disruption of equilibrium. The principle of homeostasis also indicates that societal change tends to be self-perpetuating and ultimately self-destructive, since each change brings the societal system further from equilibrium, resulting in additional changes and ultimately collapse.
[[Category:Biology]]

Biology

2007-08-16T23:17:59Z

Tester: /* History */ modern biology

'''Biology''' is the scientific study of life.

It encompasses in it several fields, including [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, such studies as [[ecology]] and [[biochemistry]] fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The cellular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division and [[mitosis]].

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

The discoveries of the nineteenth century spurred the development of modern biology. Mendel's breeding experiments initiated [[genetics]]; the microscope initiated [[microbiology]]; and the synthesis of urea initiated [[biochemistry]]. In the early twentienth century the field of [[population genetics]] spurred the development of [[statistics]]. Advances in [[analytical chemistry]] permitted scientists to determine the structure of important biological molecules, such as DNA. These discoveries lead to the rapid development of [[molecular genetics]]. Coming full circle, these developments, combined with population genetic theory, is permitting scientists to examine the process of crop and animal domestication.

==Fields of Study==

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

==Ethical implications==
[[Philosophy of science|Philosophers of science]] generally extrapolate from the principle of homeostasis to the conclusion that adaptive evolution is contrary to the nature of life, since it relies on the repeated disruption of equilibrium. The principle of homeostasis also indicates that societal change tends to be self-perpetuating and ultimately self-destructive, since each change brings the societal system further from equilibrium, resulting in additional changes and ultimately collapse.
[[Category:Biology]]

Biology

2007-08-16T23:10:19Z

Tester: /* Modern Research */

'''Biology''' is the scientific study of life.

It encompasses in it several fields, including [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, such studies as [[ecology]] and [[biochemistry]] fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The cellular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division and [[mitosis]].

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

==Fields of Study==

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

==Ethical implications==
[[Philosophy of science|Philosophers of science]] generally extrapolate from the principle of homeostasis to the conclusion that adaptive evolution is contrary to the nature of life, since it relies on the repeated disruption of equilibrium. The principle of homeostasis also indicates that societal change tends to be self-perpetuating and ultimately self-destructive, since each change brings the societal system further from equilibrium, resulting in additional changes and ultimately collapse.
[[Category:Biology]]

Talk:Liberal

2007-08-16T22:48:37Z

Tester: taxpayer funded abortion

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)
::I think the issue is that the definition of the term has changed in the USA. We could use the rule that we stick with the original definition (I don't know if Conservapedia has a convention regarding this). In this case, we would simply note that the term has gotten redefined in the USA, and refers the reader to the appropriate article (whether it is [[progressive]], [[socialist]], [[satanist]] or something else). [[User:Tester|Tester]] 18:43, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Right, but unless the teacher leads the prayer, there's not going to be any out-loud prayer going on in class. Either the school authorizes it and everyone does it, or it doesn't and nobody does it. That's not a false dichotomy - a school which does not authorize teachers to lead prayer is one where the students themselves face an uphill struggle for the right to pray aloud in schools, which is enough to dissuade all but the most motivated students. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:28, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== taxpayer funded abortion ==

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:
#Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
#State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).
[[User:Tester|Tester]] 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-08-16T22:43:56Z

Tester: /* "American Liberal?" */

Talk:Liberal

2007-08-16T22:43:30Z

Tester: /* "American Liberal?" */ definition has changed

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)
::I think the issue is that the definition of the term has changed in the USA. We could use the rule that we stick with the original definition (I don't know if Conservapedia has a convention regarding this). In this case, we would simply note that the term has gotten redefined in the USA, and refers the reader to the appropriate article (whether it is [[progressive]], [[socialist]], [[satanist]] or something else).

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Right, but unless the teacher leads the prayer, there's not going to be any out-loud prayer going on in class. Either the school authorizes it and everyone does it, or it doesn't and nobody does it. That's not a false dichotomy - a school which does not authorize teachers to lead prayer is one where the students themselves face an uphill struggle for the right to pray aloud in schools, which is enough to dissuade all but the most motivated students. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:28, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Biology

2007-08-16T19:47:26Z

Tester: ethical implications of homeostasis

Biology

2007-08-16T19:38:41Z

Tester: wikify

User:Tester

2007-08-16T19:33:35Z

Tester: New page: Conservative-libertarian and biologist.

Conservative-libertarian and biologist.