Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal"

Latest revision as of 19:46, April 18, 2022

Archive 1|Archive 2 |Archive 3|Archive 4

Differences between liberals and democrats

These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

Support for gun control (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

Political correctness (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

Environmentalism (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

Disarmament treaties (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World. (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin

Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: 1. The article's definition of a liberal "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

2. list of so called political positions and practices The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

3. picture The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

4. Liberals in north america today Again, no facts here. the following claims are made:

Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]
5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --Trekdude31 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of liberal deceit.--JZim 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

You are only making false conclusions. Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. TomUp 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Well, TrekDude’s right. Eger (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --Trekdude31 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--ForeverPeace

Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--Andy Schlafly 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --ForeverPeace

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --Quetzalcoatl 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Exactly.TomUp 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Picture

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?JPohl 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. Harbinger 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. Apr28 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -Shakleton 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -Shakleton 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.

NebraskaG 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside you fear us by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. Karajou 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.

NebraskaG 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

Additional Liberal Organizations

Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpatt (talk)

Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --Jareddr 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --Jareddr 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --Jareddr 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --Jareddr 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--jp 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it here! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --Jareddr 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--jp 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --Jareddr 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--jp 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Founding Fathers were liberal

For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... Jros83 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--Andy Schlafly 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

List at top

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? PCarson 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Clean up article

Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located here. Thank you.--JasonM 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. Help Jazz 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Recent changes

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. Help Jazz 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). Help Jazz 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps the word you're looking for is tautology? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). Underscoreb 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) Help Jazz 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

That better? Philip J. Rayment 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) Help Jazz 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama: Professor?

Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.^[1] He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.^[2] He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.^[3] Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. ^[4] The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.^[5]

"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.[7] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

University of Chicago's Statement Regarding Barack Obama^[6] states: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [8]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama) be changed to remove Obama's name.

Suggestions:

The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. Conservatores 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.

Liberal Arts

I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --KevinS 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Good suggestion. I removed them.--aschlafly 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely correct definition...but :-)

A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.

This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between these 19th century Christian liberals and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as Karl Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach and their 20th century couterparts Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin? --RickD 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?

liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--Andy Schlafly 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.

You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. Karajou 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. SamuelC 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."

I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --EvanW 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised fellow-travellers of overt Communists. Bugler 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be fellow-travellers, thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the Kingdom of God. Reinhold Niebuhr is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive fellow-travellers notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --RickD 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)

On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about God, Jesus, or Scripture is unknown) like Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama appear to more into Liberal Fascism than fellow-travellers. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --RickD 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

The philosophy of Liberalism

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --Jpatt 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of deceit. Apr28 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

Today liberals support taxpayer-funded abortion and demand censorship of classroom prayer, plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The deceit is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

Free Market

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. NotALiberal 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Suggestion

The text currently reads There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing. I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' MauriceB 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

If you want anyone to take you seriously...

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Yorpa 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for liberal namecalling. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). DanieleGiusto 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Problems With the Article

a liberal is merely someone who craves attention
Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says some argue rather than most or a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. Ululator 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?

Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--CPalmer 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

(edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--Andy Schlafly 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.Ululator 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? Ululator 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Application

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. AddisonDM 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? JoshJGordon 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Question about the article

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. JamesY 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of Faith. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? ShmuelB 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This is completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

As an example of the illogical view of atheists, they deny the existence of Hell. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--Andy Schlafly 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmmaAm (talk)

Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Texico11 (talk)

Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--Jpatt 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Texico11, you find no logical flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--Andy Schlafly 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--Texico11 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

First few sentences

I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - Trajork 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)

A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. NP 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)

My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - Trajork 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--Andy Schlafly 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":

An Islamic terrorist
a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
J Edgar Hoover
A member of the Flat Earth Society
A member of the Ku Klux Klan
Adolf Hitler
Robert Mugabe
General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? Cantaloupe 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. JacobB 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)

OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. Cantaloupe 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar. While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. JacobB 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)

My challenge to you is to go to the articles Adolf Hitler, Ku Klux Klan and terrorist and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. Cantaloupe 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.JacobB 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --EvanW 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--Andy Schlafly 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards in a different way than liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do not reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.

Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --EvanW 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. Liberals, in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

I just found an interesting article about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism is a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --EvanW 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [9] --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their fellow travelers said they were for "peace", while the peace movement of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral nuclear disarmament and getting the US out of Vietnam. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on global warming; they don't care about science but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to deviant sexual practices as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone on the left of the political spectrum. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --EvanW 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define theological liberalism; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --EvanW 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

First few sentences (Edit Break)

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools: Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism Traits: Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect.... It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other. On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible. --Double Edge 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general). --Double Edge 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

This entry defines a liberal today. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-abortion liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

Liberals support Barack Obama, so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--Andy Schlafly 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them? You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness. --Double Edge 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?

The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. JacobB_(admin)^{Shout out!} 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in Liberal denial. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --ReligiousRight 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--Andy Schlafly 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated. --Double Edge 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their liberal trick of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--Andy Schlafly 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of Liberal traits and Liberal style. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic Liberal deceit. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called Liberal fairness. --ReligiousRight 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--Manhattan

Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? Karajou 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--Manhattan

No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. Karajou 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--Manhattan

Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --NateSmall 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly intellectual or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal. --Double Edge 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--Manhattan

Reversion

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that anybody, including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ - Jeff W. Lauttamus _Discussion 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism?

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that America is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our liberals are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! Tzoran ^Talk 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! Tzoran ^Talk 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative?

Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --Houshalter 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--Andy Schlafly 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined JoshJGordon 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Narrowly US-Oriented Article

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an American encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? Tyler Zoran ^Talk 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

Introductory remarks

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.

This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, Phiwum 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Child porn?

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? Phiwum 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. Karajou 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Also, the ACLU has a long reputation for defending child pornography. Tyler Zoran ^Talk 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: even if I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and even if what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)

Much thanks. Phiwum 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. Karajou 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) Phiwum 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only benefits people seeking to deal in child pornography. Tyler Zoran ^Talk 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the ACLU's treatment of it. I know it's in the pornography article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen here. Does that make more sense? Tyler Zoran ^Talk 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.

But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? Phiwum 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. JoshJGordon 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

A few minor things

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.JoshJGordon 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

:And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''

The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! TrevS 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. JoshJGordon 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. JoshJGordon 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an American encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. JoshJGordon 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

That would be super, Josh!

I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Classical liberalism

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

Liberal corporations section proposal

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--Andy Schlafly 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--Andy Schlafly 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country?

If this country was not founded on christianity? --MahmoudAlzwarii 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Liberals in Europe

Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.

this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011

Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, one of the few great democratic Presidents, firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.

Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced Keynesian economics and prolonged the Great Depression.

I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.

Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. conservative 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? JacobD 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Look how fast the ex-President and businessman Calvin Coolidge licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ conservative 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Nazis and pedarists

Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. User:DavidMilton

headline reversion

Re: this edit I don't think its fair to say all liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? MaxFletcher 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech.

While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. Ayzmo 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'

But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? MachinaSapiens 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the Question evolution! campaign is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. Conservative 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

Disarmament treaties

I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --GeorgeLi 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)

"the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..."

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. JeffreyB 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

More Biased than Wikipedia

I'm a Conservative, and yet I think this is far more biased than anything I've EVER read on Wikipedia. They at least don't make sweeping generalizations that make entire groups seem like dirt

maybe someday there will be a Wikia written from a Conservative point of view without all the extra stuff....though perhaps you can help create one as a counterpoint to CP. --DavidS 15:39, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

iraq

The two sentences:

Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq

mean the same thing. Please remove one of it.--JoeyJ 11:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)

Hilary Clinton saying she "believes in white supremacy"

Here's the entire quote:

“

"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Mrs. Clinton said, according to the Long Island newspaper. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'" The senator added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?' ... I won't stand for it."

”

source

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton was not expressing her own views on white supremacy, but outlining a thought experiment. To say otherwise is quote-mining, and makes me wonder about the good faith of the editor involved. SaulJ 13:22, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Here's the [[10]]. She quite clearly isn't talking about her own views. JohnSelway 20:56, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

It's not going into the article. She is not advocating white supremacy. Conservative 22:01, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

I permanently banned the editor responsible for this. I think some of his edits were intentionally wrong. Conservative 01:13, 12 July 2015 (EDT)

A liberal's point of view on this page

This is the absolute worst thing I've read on this wiki. I can at least understand your bias, and I do agree with some supposedly. "conservative" views including being against PC culture and the fact that radical Islamic terrorists are radical Islamic terrorists. But this page is horrible. I'm not one to be offended easily but I find stuff like this borderline offensive. You guys are generalizing all of us into one distinct category and I'm sure not one liberal believes in everything you guys say we all do. Also fascism is an inherently rightist ideology, and I love it how people say we're all fascists; I can at least understand you guys calling us communists as they are leftists. And we don't believe in slavery either. I doubt anyone does at this point, at least outside of poor African states and Middle Eastern theocracies. I won't mention everything wrong about this page as there is so much it would take me hours to.

Regarding fascism, you're wrong about that - fascism is not a "rightist" ideology, but like Communism, is on the Left. It's for the best at this point that the main article is locked against editing in order to prevent any edit warring anyway.

P.S. Please make sure to sign your posts when you comment in talk sections. Northwest (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

The actions taken by the "antifa" protestors and other liberals who try to silence those who disagree with them strongly resemble fascism. They think the world will be a better place if they can get rid of those who disagree with them. Also, socialism and an expansive government is an inherent part of fascism, which really is a militaristic/nationalistic version of socialism. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Since words have no meaning - a basic liberal tenet - I don't understand why liberals are so emotionally attached to the word 'liberal'. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 12:43, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Two points: The left does practice forced labor. See: Atheism and forced labor 2) I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views. The reason why liberals cry "I'm offended" so frequently is that they cannot or will not form legitimate arguments. In short, they are incompetent/dishonest.Conservative (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Pardon me for being offended that you paint me as supporting genocide and murder. Nobs, it's true that words have no inherent meaning - but this doesn't mean that they have no meaning at all. No inherent meaning means that the marks we put on paper don't have meaning in and of themselves. If they did, you and I would be able to read Japanese without problem. It's the configurations that we put those marks in and the things we're taught in life that give the marks meaning. It is also important to note that not all words mean the same things to the same people. In this sense, words have no meaning as well. For instance, you would say the verb 'revise' means 'to clean up and make better', like revisions to a paper. To me, the verb 'revise' means 'to study'. These are differences between American and British English. Revise has no meaning per se, but the culture we come from gives the words meaning. Make sense? Even the phrase 'per se' there probably has different meanings to you and I.

Conservative. Mate, I understand that you don't care whether or not I'm offended. That's your prerogative. But do understand that your article there isn't the truth. Liberals don't support paedophilia. We don't support murder. We don't support genocide. I could go on and on about the things we don't support that your article claims we do. For the sake of the truth, it's time to clean this article up. Vive Liberté! 14:16, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I agree completely. For example, I just discovered "humanitarian" to Barack Obama means "behead Christians" to me, or "responsibility to protect civilians" to Hillary Clinton means "arm and equip ISIS" to everybody else. That's what this article attempts to do, clarify meanings. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 17:54, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Regarding the murder/genocide part, liberals support abortion, which is a form of murder and genocide because the unborn babies truly are human beings (a scientific fact liberals deny and replace with pseudoscience). Abortion has murdered about 60 million people since 1973 in the U.S. alone. Regarding pedophilia, it's a good thing that many liberals don't support it yet. However, if we were speaking in the 1970s, most liberals would say they opposed homosexual behavior and even abortion. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Vive Liberté!, it is not MY article although I contributed to it in the past. I reviewed that article and made improvements as I am all for accuracy, footnoting, etc. Conservative (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I mentioned you there because of your "I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your[sic] offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views." comment. Vive Liberté! 18:06, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I didn't review the article before I made my commentary. After reviewing the article, I made some improvements. Conservative (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

This article

.. Is abysmal in every sense of the word. The more I poke around here and edit and such, the more I realise that Conservapaedia isn't an encyclopaedia qua encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopaedia qua propaganda machine. I propose a total rework of this article. I'll do it if no one else will. I understand that you all have conservative values, I do, but straw manning everything left of you is blatant deceit. You don't even have to be on my half of the political spectrum to see that 'Liberals support murder' is wrong. Please, it's time to clean up your work. It's very clearly wrong. Vive Liberté! 08:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Oh, and by the way Karajou, the last edit was on 30 April, from nobs. There hasn't been an edit in over a week. That's hardly an edit war. Vive Liberté! 09:02, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

And I will prevent one. Viva real liberty. Karajou (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Thank you

For at least making an effort, Conservative, to revise this article. It's definitely a start. Vive Liberté! 16:23, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

.. Never mind - we're back to where we started. Vive Liberté! 16:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Please elaborate. Conservative (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

The article has changed. We are not back to where we started. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

liberal/eugenics/genocide

You are not showing me any poll showing me that the majority of modern liberals like the eugenics aspects of abortion. That is why I moved it to some liberals. Conservative (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Here's one: 90% of people with an unborn baby with Down Syndrome will commit an abortion. In Denmark, that number is 98%, and it is in the 90s in other countries. In Iceland, that number is 100%. Liberals (or anyone, for that matter) are not going to call it eugenics. But read the article Eugenics, and the definition is very similar to what we see going on today. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I should be more specific. Genocide is wiping out a race of people. There is a difference between abortion to prevent people with birth defects and genocide. Also, I am not sure what the difference is between European liberals and abortion/birth defects and American liberals and abortion/birth defects. The other issue is that some European nations are more liberal than others. Denmark/Iceland for example are two of the most irreligious European nations. There is a difference between Hungary for example and Denmark which is less religious. Also, in Italy about 70% of doctors refuse to do abortions and abortion has restriction and can't be done after 90 days. There is a difference between Denmark and Italy.

After all is said and done, you can't use an overly broad paint stroke. I just am asking for a higher degree of accuracy that was in the article before.

Also, not all liberals are communists. There is a difference between Denmark/Sweden and the Soviet Union/China for example. Conservative (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

European liberals are liberals nonetheless, and at least when referring to eugenics, I think it's clear that liberals support it (unless you can show me that many of them oppose aborting babies with Down Syndrome). BTW, Hungary is actually a conservative nation. The post-communist nations in Eastern Europe have shifted strongly to the Right. Also, you can define the unborn as "a race of people" (though not in the ethnic sense, but they are a type of people and a lot of them have been murdered). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Exactly. The unborn are not a race of people. Not all abortion is genocidal. Conservative (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

No, the unborn are a group of people. Genocide is still genocide if the people in question are unborn, homosexual, or Jews. It doesn't have to be ethnic. Genocide can still be included here. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism

Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism.

Liberalism is bad. But not everything that is bad is automatically liberal. Political science done in a valid way recognizes there is spectrum of political beliefs from right to left. It is cartoonish and a reflection of binary/limited thinking to think that the words liberalism and bad are synonymous. Conservative (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

I have to strongly disagree with you here. Obviously, Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich, but many of the principles of their ideologies are the same. Communist ideology is strongly for labor and against business. They strongly oppose religion and support state atheism. They oppose the family and think children should be wards of the government. The same principles of liberalism.

Fascism is socialist, just a more militaristic and nationalistic version of it. Franco was conservative, but Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. They also practiced gun control, and Hitler supported animal rights and environmentalism.

We can see the fascist side of liberalism today, with the antifa movement rioting and trying to silence conservatives.

These people may not be called liberals by the mainstream (and in some ways they differ), but clear similarities exist. They should definitely be re-added. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Silencing opposing views is common throughout history. In the early colonies, there was not religious freedom at first. If you were a religion other than what that particular colony was, you faced discrimination.

And yes I agree with you that Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich. That is why liberalism is separate from communism/fascism. In short, there is a political spectrum. I know you are aware of this matter. Let's not waste time debating the obvious. In the entire world during the 20th/21st centuries, there is not a single encyclopedia you could buy or find in a library that confused liberalism with Nazism/communism.

Liberalism is bad. We agree on this matter. There is no point in grasping at straws in order to try to make liberalism worse. Conservative (talk)

You're missing my point. Liberalism and fascism/communism are the same in many ways (atheism, labor, one-world government, anti-family, government control in the lives of people for communism; big government, animal "rights," environmentalism, gun control, socialism with the Nazis). These are liberals, but more extreme versions of them. They are liberals nonetheless. Also, let's not make library book the final authority, as liberals obviously don't want to call nazism and communism liberalism. Let's look at their policies and not what the mainstream thinks of them. Their policies were left-wing. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

The secular left is made up of atheists/agnostics. The Soviet Union and communism is militant atheism. Not agnosticism or "militant agnosticism".

Communism was not well known for animal rights. When I think of the Soviet Union or Chinese communism or the Russians, animal rights activism does not spring to mind.

The environmental record for communism is very poor compared to liberalism. For example, please read the article If You Think Communism Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment. Germany is fairly liberal, has a high standard of living, produces many things and does a lot of exporting. But its record in terms of the environment is far better than most, if not all, communist countries.

This may be correct and I have not thoroughly researched it, "The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights."[11] But conservation is different from environmentalism so I am not sure how fair it is to say that Nazism practiced environmentalism in terms of its ideology. See: Conservation vs. environmentalism The bottom line though is you have to explain things. Not just bury them in footnotes with a few words. You will destroy any shred of credibility the article has if you do this. I did clean up some ridiculous claims like Attila the Hun being a liberal.

European social democracies which are liberal are different from communist countries. People can do open air preaching in many/all liberal countries in Europe. You cannot do that in communist countries.

There is a political spectrum.

You can certainly have a section in the article on the more extreme liberals and clearly mark it as such, but be sure to cite legitimate examples and clearly explain it. Specifically, clearly explain things and don't bury them in the footnotes. Don't just have two words if people are not commonly aware of a matter. Not everyone who reads the article is a hard core conservative or is very informed about politics. For example, Anita Dunn, who was Obama's debate coach and who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009, named Mao as her favorite political philosopher.[12] That is a legitimate point to make as far as far left liberals.

And let's do use the entire world's libraries for decades and decades and decades and use the world's printed encyclopedias and not pretend they don't exist for the sake of ideological fantasizing. Liberalism is not Nazism or communism.Conservative (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I updated the article and documented the communists moving closer to capitalism and the American liberals being more sympathetic to communism. I also created a liberal intolerance section of the article and near the lead of the article I put how liberals were limiting free speech. Conservative (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Update photo

Let's update the photo from Obama to Elizabeth Warren. This will help keep the article fresh and timely. Every time a new piece of idiocy comes out of her mouth, we'll something to add explaining how she's wrong and keep the page current. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 23:17, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Go ahead. Makes sense. Obama is largely yesterday's news. So is Hillary Clinton. Conservative (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Good. I'll try to find a picture of her with a booger hanging out of her nose. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 23:44, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberal intolerance article greatly needs expansion - especially in light of recent events

The liberal intolerance article greatly needs to be expanded - especially in light of things that have happened since Trump appeared as a political candidate and was elected (violent demonstrations, violence used to prevent speakers on campuses, etc. etc.). Right now, the liberal intolerance article is merely one sentence.

If the Liberal intolerance article was expanded, the liberal article could have a section on liberal intolerance.

The liberal article is a popular article. But it turned into a mess and I cleaned it up as I indicated on the talk page.

The liberal article could be much better. Modern liberalism is often intolerant of conservatives/conservatism. The way the liberal article was trying to make this point was poorly done. Slapping the word Stalinism, etc. on the article doesn't cut the mustard. A section on liberal intolerance with a link to a well-supported article would cut the mustard. Conservative (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

I started the article.Conservative (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

In that article what's needed is not just a laundry list of instances, but an in depth anaylsis as to what basic beliefs liberals hold that they feel justify censoring, silencing, intimidating, harassing, lawbreaking, using acts of violence up to and including extermination againsts persons they deem non-liberal. RobS^{The coup plotters won, for now} 16:34, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

RobS, Go for it!!!! It could be a very informative and popular article if it was done right. If it was helpful to readers, you could have a very small section of examples which gave a link to a separate article giving a laundry list such as Examples of liberal intolerance). Conservative (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberalism and communism

It might be a good idea to consider adding this to the article: the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Vandalism

I checked the "difference" on that last attempt of vandalism by Click Your Heels, even though I don't usually, and it may have been one of the funnier vandalisms here, if a bit poorly attempted.--Nathan (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2017 (EDT)

I can see why. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

References needed for quotes.

All liberals are secular?

This seems to suggest that all American liberals are secular, which is nonsense. --Jackin the box (talk) 15:27, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

It's true, God does not require a high IQ to be a believer or Christian. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 15:44, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

True. --Jackin the box (talk) 15:46, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[4] [4]

[5] [5]

[6] [6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{protected|Aschlafly}}
+<br />
+[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
+|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
+<br />
+<!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== -->
-[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
+== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
-[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
+These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.
-== Wikipedia Citations ==
-*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''
+'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)
+'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)
-== Some problems with Views ==
+'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)
-The following items from the list of views need some work:
+'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)
-* 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 ==
+'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)
-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?
+'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)
-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|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
+'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)
-**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>
+== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
+Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
+'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)
-with the references, of course.  <references/>
+'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
+The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.
-P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]].  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
+Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.
-*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
+'''3. picture'''
-: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|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
+The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.
-::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|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
+'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
+Again, no facts here.
+the following claims are made:
+<blockquote>
+Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]
-== Someone explain to me... ==
+. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.
-How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace
+* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]
-: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)
+* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
+</blockquote>
-I think that's a little oversimplified - I happen to have a very old and good friend, a rancher who lives in Montana.   He's a Republican, gun carrying, NRA member, pro-life, chruch-going, and a real American Man's Man.   Yet he's a keen supporter of Greenpeace and the NRDC, because he's also a huge lover of nature - he's very keen on the reintroduction of the wolf, he advocates banning off-road vehicle use in most rural areas and has similar views on skidoos, he drives a Prius because he doesn't want to pollute the atmosphere or contribute to global warming, he generates his own windpower.   I think people see the world in much broader shades of gray than the two boxes of Liberal and Conservative you seem so keen to put them in.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.
-:That's a non sequiter. You're assuming Greenpeace is an organization concerned about the environment. We usually ban disinformation activists/specialists. Right now you are in violation of 90/10 rule -- 2/3 of your edits are meaningless talk such as above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:47, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
-Why is it a non sequitor?   The comment above mine says Greenpeace is a liberal organization, and I'm simply saying my Republican, God-fearing rancher friend wouldn't call himself a liberal if you paid him!   He's a very 'typical Conservapedia' person in many ways, but he loves the environment, that's all - I'm simply saying there's people like you, who wouldn't agree with you about Greenpeace.    And regarding my edits, I'm a new user around here, and I have contributed  one edit to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was reverted, causing two comments, and this comment here.   So that's 75/25, surely?
+The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])
-Finally, I'm not even a member of any environmental organizations myself!   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.
-== Definition? ==
+to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.
-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)
+This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
-: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)
+::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)
+:::You are only making false conclusions.  Take a step back, man. We don't deceive people, you only decieve yourself. [[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:13, 2 March 2013 (EST)
+::::Well, TrekDude’s right. [[User:Eger|Eger]] ([[User talk:Eger|talk]]) 17:27, 11 March 2021 (EST)
-*The do all believe in one thing, I find:  [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
+This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)
-: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
+::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]
-::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)
+:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)
-:::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
+:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]
-::::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
+The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias.  You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve.  This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses.  Consider this a public service announcement.
-::::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.
+Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here.  Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.
-::::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.
+My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):
-::::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)
+"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"
-:::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)
+Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
-<--
+:Exactly.[[User:TomUp|TomUp]] 11:10, 2 March 2013 (EST)
-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:
+== Picture ==
-*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)
+Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
+Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (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.
+Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)
-:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say
+: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also.  The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives.  Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)
-:: '' 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."
+::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)
-: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.
+:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton.  I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say.  --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)
-:How some something like:
+:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)
-:: ''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
+It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals.  Who cares?  They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them.  Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor.  The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you.  --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)
-:::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.
+Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
+ [[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
+:You are close-minded.  When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking.  We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us?  I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)
-:::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)
+I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
+  [[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)
-== taxpayer funded abortion ==
+== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
+Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}
-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:
+:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
-#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)
-:You're not serious, are you?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
-*Yes, [[Deceit|Liberals]] also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well.  I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
+::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
-[[Image:Lol.gif‎ ]]
+Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
-*Rob, feel free to "borrow" my LOL for all such posts. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 21:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
+Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
-:Great! Will do.
-:"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine.  It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase.  Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [http://web.archive.org/web/20000819003459/http://www.alternatives.com/libs/poledge.htm] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports")  "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their ''real'' intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to [[exterminate]] minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes.  This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."
-:So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion."  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
-*I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
+The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union  backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-: How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
+: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion?  Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]!  Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile.  Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-::Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website.  But it does make for a starting point here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chip_Berlet] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor").  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
+:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-::::A fringe nutjob who wrote for the [[Yippies]] ''Overthrow'' publication, and the [[Guardian]] newspaper, which was founded by a few [[KGB]] operatives and hired a reporter who actually took part in torturing American [[POW]]s  during the Korean War.  Yes, this fringe nutjob not only has a record of writing for marginal, fringe & extremist publications, is the inventor of bizarre conspiracy theories, this same fringe nutjob is in fact Wikipedia's Gatekeeper of political content--the person assigned by Jimbo & the Foundation to judge acceptable politcal content and sourcing for the information your children get all the Google hits on.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::Source? I like sources. Can I get a source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:38, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::*"Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)" [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]
-:::::*“Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left,” The [[Guardian]] (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3." cited from Berlet's own webstie [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]; Conservapedia's article on the [[Guardian#post-60s_radicalism]] gives you everything you need to know about ''Guardian'', cited from a mainstream publisher (Prometheus Books),  [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], pg. 125.
-:::::*"Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, '''and is highly regarded''' as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. '''He's definitely a credible source for WP''' and has been used as such in several articles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20232935&oldid=20232665]
-:::::*"a valuable Wikipedia editor" Fred Bauder Sun Dec 4 15:37:38 UTC 2005 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html]
-== Another definition of liberal ==
+::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose.  But take my idea and let's collaborate.  That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me.  Let's collaborate and put something together.  Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the [[realism]] page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)
+:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
-:In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.
-:The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].
+==Founding Fathers were liberal==
+For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.
-Thanks!! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
+Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...
-:"an actor whose methods...etc" "complex interdependence between states" (really? who wudda thunk it...) "no hieracrhy of importance" IOW, peace isn't anymore of a priority than war, or famine relief is no more important than extermination and slavery.
-:Sheeesh, why do we get all these types?  Can you give an example of this type of "actor"?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:12, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)
-::Well, an actor in international politics is rarely actually an individual, it is any organization which makes or is involved with the foreign policy. But I'm not just making this stuff up, I basically copied the definition straight from my IP class notes. Some examples of liberal actors would be the UN, as well as many countries in Europe. The European Union is a textbook definition of a liberal organization. The US is basically a textbook definition of a realist, the opposite of a liberal. We (meaning the country's leadership with indirect influence from the citizens) generally believe that power and unilateralism are better (more effective) than institutions and international law. The USSR would be another great example of a realist state.
-::I realize it might seem to muddy up the definition of "liberal", but this isn't a new definition for a different ''type'' of liberal. It's applying the same definition (more or less) to a different ''level'' of politics. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:45, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.
-*Sounds like more double speak to muddy the waters. Liberals, world-wide, tend toward socialism/socialistic thinking and policies. That the State should regulate and control more.  That much is universal. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:50, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian.  But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
-::Eeeeeeh ''kind of''. Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics. For example, no country has as part of it's foreign policy a "support of affirmative action" because it doesn't make sense in world-level politics. The IP definition of liberal also has ''nothing'' to do with socialism, that's again a lower level of politics. You could maybe argue that they want more government control... but that's not exactly right either. I wish they had invented a new term, because the two "liberals" are distinct from each other.
+==List at top==
-::Just pretend that the IP liberal is actually some new word, like "miberal". If you go up to my definition and replace "liberal" with "miberal" it gets the message across better. "Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess! I hope this makes sense. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: Just be glad I'm leaving the definition general. We could get into neoliberalism and transnationalism and REALLY get things interesting! :)''
+The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?
-:::Considering it was [[Alger Hiss]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and [[Josef Stalin]] who created the [[United Nations]], [[liberal]] may be the correct word to ascribe to it.  However then, we must therefore incorporate its history into the United Nations, and an understanding of what the word liberal means.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
-::::Unfortunately I don't have any information about the etymology of the word liberal. I don't know if it is related to the creation of the United Nations. I will see if there's a discussion in my IP books anywhere. Either way, they are still two different meanings, even if one meaning branched from the other in the past. Go through the article and you will find that much of it simply does not apply to world-level interactions. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+==See Also==
+Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
-*Per Andy:  Liberal = [[Deceit]].  That's good enough for me! --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 17:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs.  Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?
-:That's fine [[rhetoric]], but it's not accurate. It probably doesn't bother anybody on this website but me (there aren't a whole lot of political theory nuts in the world), but getting nuances like this correct are important if you want to be an accurate encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing?  I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.
-::You seem to be describing a paid bureaucrat, however the "methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" is a little bit suspicious.  And what term would describe an actor who rejects "no hierarchy of importance among international issues"?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back."  I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)
-:::Bureaucrats though, tend to be very "conservative" i.e. "resistant to change" as a group in whatever political machine they find themselves in. A "conservative bureaucrat" in a Marxist regime would resist efforts to bring his country's policies in-line with an open and free market system. Conversely, a "liberal bureaucrat" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), in the same regime would be pushing for something closer to what US conservatives would like. Maybe it's time to chuck this "definition" for something workable. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 19:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+==Clean up article==
+Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
+:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
-:::Luckily, Rob, I brought my text books with me to sell off... and luckily they haven't sold yet :) Here are some quotes which should clear things up, and prove I'm not just inventing this stuff! (from ''World Politics: the Menu for Choice'' by Russett, Starr, and Kinsella):
+== Recent changes ==
-::::'''Power vs. international law and institutions'''
+In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.
-::::*"liberalism was and continues to be a reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics"
-::::*"[Liberals] emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which prevented countries' actions."
-::::'''Glossary definition'''
+Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
-::::*"Liberalism - A perspective that emphasizes the importance of institutions and linkages between states for facilitating cooperation, coordination, and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution"
-:::An actor who rejects a lack of a hierarchy (in other words, an actor who believes there ''is'' a higherarchy) would be a realist: realists place security above all other matters. I'm not sure what you mean by the beaurocrat comment, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
+::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
+:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
+:::: That better?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
+:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
-::::Well, yes, this is classical liberalism; "benefits of collective security and the rule of international law" is moreless the same as a Wilsonian Democracy.  This picture is however, incomplete.  Because it is not a straight line from Wilson Democracy through the New Deal & post WWII institutions such as the UN or IMF.  State planning intervened, and the modern idea of "liberalism" was corrupted.  I haven't read enough of this stuff (your cite) to know if it makes that fact clear, or is just another fig leaf.  This author evidently is David Kinsella, not to be confused with Stephan Kinsella, whose ideas I think are radically different.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:21, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
+==Obama: Professor?==
+''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''
-:::::I was talking with my friend who has had much more study on the subject, and she suggested I use the term [[idealist]] instead of liberal. This is an older term that means the same thing, but it's not as confusing or muddying as liberal. You are right, liberalism and idealism are similar, and they have similar roots, but they aren't the same thing. Both overlap, but they have different scopes and applications. Should I take this over to [[idealist]] then? (And yes, it is David; I don't know anything much about Stephan). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:38, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>   He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>  He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>  The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>
-<-- Actually, I'm not certain that would fit, here's why: "reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics" and "focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" can be very [[pragmatic]], as opposed to partisan [[ideologue]]s (conservatives tend to speak in these terms, pragmatists vs ideologues). An actor (individual or entity) who ignores partisan "power politics", and driven by pragmatism and reality, probably is not so much of an idealist.  "Idealist's" are generally regarded as dreamers; yet none the less, elected and appointed offices are full of these types, and they never cease trying to convert others to thier idealism.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized."  Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]  So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.
-:See, though, this is just another problem with English, not a problem with the definition. Just as there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal), there are two types of idealists (the "opposite of a realist" idealist and the "opposite of a pragmatist" idealist). (There are also two types of realists!) My book takes 2 pages to give a basic definition of liberal (including the transition from idealists to liberals) and then another 400 pages distinguishing liberal from realist. (There's also another term, "radical", which generally describes the socialist view of world politics). Repeating this entire discussion is not practical in a concise encyclopedia, so I boiled down a whole semester's study (and then some) into the definition I gave at the top of this section (aaaaaaaaaall the way up there!). That definition needs to go *somewhere*, because right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist. Please advise me on where I should put this information. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:06, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>  states:  ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."  From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.''  It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.
-::Let me offer an unfair, stereotyped conjecture about Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, which I have not read and is only based upon my own personal experiences and biases: these gentlemen appear to attempting to rehabilitate 'liberalism' (to a youthful audience) using band aids, duct tape, rubber bands, and paper clips.  They are attempting to put a good face upon it, and deny & sweep under the rug much of the historical record since the aftermath of the First World War.  They are attempting to paint a picture that draws a straight line through the idealism of Woodrow Wilson (and that entire generation at the time of Wilson which was highly ideological, that went to war to "make the world safe for democracy"), that then in theory this idealism supported radical social & economic change during the New Deal, as well as ''more'' foreign interventionism (which the record shows, again failed).  And the two points that connect the dots in this theory of a continuity of "liberal ideals" is the failed League of Nations, and the (in theory) more successful United Nations.
+* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04.  It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer.  [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]
-::All this [[disinformation]] is intended to indoctrinate young people who's political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet. So of course we have throw in the mix somewhere the notion of good guys & bad guys.  Liberals of course, are always the good guys, forward thinking, kind, considerate, defenders of the oppressed, etc., and anyone who opposes them is of course, a conservative or Nazi by any other term.  Never mind how we arrive at these conclusions, it is just getting there is all that matters.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::Um... no, that's not really the case at all. And it's a little foil-hatted, to boot. HSK are not the only sources we used in that class, either. We also drew from ''International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues'' by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (which is actually a compiliation, so there are at least 20 or so more authors associated with it), as well as ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Relations Since 1945'' by Geir Lundstad. My national security policy book also used the same definition, but I don't remember who wrote that off the top of my head (the book is at home). We also touched on it very minorly in my political theory class, which was taught by a visitng professor. My friend who is a 8th semester poli sci major at a completely different school from me read this conversation last night and agreed that I was using the right definition, and that this is the "official" international relations use of the term.
+All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time.  The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track".  I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.
-:::You keep substituting your opinion about liberalism for a critique of the definition of liberalism. Even if you don't agree with liberals (in either sense of the word) ''liberals still exist.'' Unlike the monster under your bed, what is in your mind has no impact on what is in the real world. You also keep using your modern frame of view to interpret the past. You complain that they aren't defining Wilson's ideology correctly, because they weren't defining Wilson's ideology. Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions. R, S, and K did not draw a false line from Wilson on; they gave a breif (2 paragraph) overview of ideological history from WWI through the creation of the UN to set the ground work. That's on pages 27-8. Then on pages 28-519 they describe modern ideology.
+Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.
-:::If you had taken my class you would have surely seen that there was no vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature of liberals -- half the class was about realists as well! We were taught the definition and we were taught how to apply the definition, but there were no value judgments made. If anything, the class had a "conservative" bias, because we basically brushed off the "radical" view entirely! There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all.
+== Suggestions: ==
+The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
-:::Is there anybody else who has studied IP back me up here? I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased) opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education. I might have to ask for a refund! ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+<references/>
-::::That's all very good, and does answer much. Those paragraphs would be interesting to read (as everything you cite would be).  But how do we reconcile somebody focused on the business of administration, i.e. "institutions and international laws," vs mindless partisan "power politics," and call them ideological dreamers instead of realists?  This definition says persons focused on mindless partisan power politics are realists, and bureacratic administrators are dreamers and idealists.  In either case, no generalizations would be true, because dreamers & realists exist both as bureacratic administrators ''and'' and persons "focused" on "power politics."
+You need to add that Conservatives deny religious rights. I have family members who are gay and wish to be married in a state that prohibits gay marriage. They are Jewish and have a Rabbi with a large Congregation who is marrying them. However Conservatives block recognition of the marriage by an ordained Rabbi. They will recognize marriages by this same Rabbi if the couple is heterosexual. I also know of ministers in the same situation. This is a clear denial of freedom of religion by the CONS.
-:::::One further note, using the term "actor," to refer to an insitution rather than individuals doesn't tell us much; we are are still dealing with persons, and not some mindless machine or animal.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+==Liberal Arts==
+I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't.  Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)
-<-- Oh, I guess part of the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics". (Naturally, [[political power]] is a redlink :/) "Power" in this case would, like most of these terms, be best served by many paragraphs, but it can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack.
+: Good suggestion.  I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)
-All of these terms have false implications in them due to the fact that they also mean something else. So idealist doesn't necessarily mean a dreamer, and a realist doesn't necessarily mean a pragmatic, at least not in the most conventional usage of these words.
+==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
+:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
+This definition is absolutely correct.  Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills.  Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
-The term "actor" isn't used to imply that these are mechanical organizations; it's used to group together all the people who have influence on decisions. You and I are individuals having a discussion, but if "The United States" and "Canada" have a discussion, even though there are more than one person involved, they are discussing the interest of only 2 actors -- each country. Also note that it's never President Bush making a foreign policy decision. He's affected directly by his advisors and his staff, and he's affected indirectly by the media and public opinion. So in a sense, it is a country acting, not a man. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."''  Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
+::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
-:I get it. Change the meaning of terms after you get committed to debate. Move the goal posts.  Yes, that is liberalism.
+:::I don't use that definition because it is false.  Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)
-:So, you're still arguing only dreamers go after political power, and practical people do not.  Yes, this does indeed appear to be the type of liberalism taught in college text books.
+::::Do you have a reliable citation for that?  Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?
-:Here are two problems: (a) why do we have to redefine "liberal" since all the other terms we've discussed seem to serve just fine for the purpose and ideas they are intended to convey, and (b) what does this new definition of "liberal" stand in contrast to?
+::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
+::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
+:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian.  He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards.  That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
-:Let's get specific: the root term, "liber", from Latin means "to free."  In 1900, liberalism was very popular, because it was respected as the thought & ideology that "liberated," or freed human beings from oppressive feudal regimes which lacked the Rights of Man. Than after WWI, on a vast international scale, the idea of "freeing" human beings from theism took root.  By the 1930s in the United States, people didn't only need to be freed from religious beliefs, they needed to be freed from poverty & ignorance ("ignorance" in this sense, is another codeword for religious beliefs).  Being freed from poverty means people have to be made wards of the state, and give up thier rights that liberalism had won for them.  Being made a ward of the state means accepting Social Security and free Healthcare, but the cost is in human freedom.
-:So liberalism today seeks to liberate human beings from theism, and looks to the day a non-Christian messiah will come, heal the sick, raise the dead, give free healthcare, destroy international borders, raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour--including those who make $2 a day in Indonesian sweatshops, so without borders, and an equal distribution of poverty, we then will have true godless fraternity (to use a sexist term), liberty, and equality.
+::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves.  How about:
+:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards.  There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing.  Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
+:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)
-:This is to raise from the ash heap of history that great leftist utopia that collapsed in 1992.  "Liberal reformer" like Gorbachav tried to save it, but "conservative Communists" opposed him in a coup and took him hostage.  Both failed. So who is Yeltsin?, since Gorby holds the title as the forward looking liberal reformer?  Yeltsin was just another Stresemann, Kerensky or Al-Maliki, just an interim caretaker til the true liberal messiah arrives bringing us all our free lunch and making us all slaves again.  Yes, this is progressivism.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
+::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]].  [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example.  He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939.  After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist.  Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions.  So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
+:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than  [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]].  Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different.  Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)
-::I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such. You misunderstood the definition and I clarified it, but nothing is different than it was when I started.
+== The philosophy of Liberalism ==
-::I have said nothing about dreamers (and neither have my text books). I have specifically ''denied'' that idealists are dreamers -- twice, I believe. And even if "idealist" ''did'' mean "dreamer" you've got it backwards! Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same think as what you seem to think it does).
+We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night
-::I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''. "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", "affirmative action", "political correctness", "the Fairness Doctrine", "censorship of prayer in classrooms" (need I go on?) are all NATIONAL issues. They make NO SENSE on the international level. (b) the opposite of a liberal is a realist!! Still!
+:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)
-::What the heck is with your anti liberal historical rant?! It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and as I said before, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS.
+::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.
-::I am continually told that Conservapedia is a meritocracy. What qualifications do you have, may I ask? If Conservapdia wants to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" we really need to get past all the rhetoric, and rely on people who have studied the subjects. Otherwise we seriously need a name change. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
+:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)
-:::*(a) So, "the opposite of a liberal is a realist"
-:::*(b) "Realists are the ones who 'go after political power'"
-:::*(c) "liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
-:::*(d) Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power"
-:::*(e) "I never once changed the definition"
-:::*(f) "the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics".... "Power" in this case would... can be simplified to "the use or display of force"
-:::*(g) "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics....make NO SENSE on the international level."
-:::*(h) "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
-:::*(i) "Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS. "
-:::Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning.  You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical.  You claim only "realists" are focued on political power.  You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense." You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."'  You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning.
-:::In this lengthy discussion, we have had absolutely no disagreement on any of the terms both of us have used, save one.  I point to it historic meaning, which is known, accepted, and has a record.  You propose to redefine the term because it, "make NO SENSE on the international level."  You go on to say, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Earlier you will recall, I noted, "somewhere we have throw the notion of good guys & bad guys in the mix."  Evidently we have reached that point, where terms have changed their meaning so we have to throw good guys & bad guys in the mix, and the wrong good guys are being called bad guys.
-:::So to set set the world right-side up again, we need to redefine terms. And of course it is only one term we need to redefine, liberal.
-:::Can we agree, this pretty much summarizes what we have discussed?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
-[[Image:Pw sign 44.gif|right]]
-::::Unfortunately there's no easy way to do this so I will have to make a list as well. My responses are in italics.
-::::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''
-::::*"You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical." ''I do not. I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power''' (meaning generally coercive force).''
-::::*"You claim only "realists" are focued on political power." ''Correct.''
-::::*"You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense."" ''No, I never mentioned trade issues. I said '''most''' of the qualities on the list make no sense (and I listed several), not '''all''' of the issues. You are putting words in my mouth.''
-::::*"You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."'" ''Correct.''
-::::*"You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning." ''I "assign a motive" when you go on a two-paragraph rant on the evils of liberalism and communism (which isn't liberalism on an international level -- it's radicalism). You are assigning value to a definition. And if the reasoning is convoluted, it's certainly not my fault; I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature and my class notes.''
-::::As far as I can tell, we disagree about "liberal" and "political power". We also disagree about "idealist", and "realist", unless I misunderstood what you were calling a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". So that's 4 terms. As I've said, I'm not trying to redefine a term, I'm trying to define a different, but similar, term that happens to use the exact same word. It's like the word "constitution". Ohio has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. The United States also has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. Both are similar, they use the same word, but they are not the same thing and one can not be directly applied to the other. Can you tell me, how many Democrats use the UN to negotiate domestic policy? And how many Republicans (realist is the analogy to conservative) use the military to enforce domestic policy?
+:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list.  There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions.  The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.
-::::I'm not sure what you mean by the good guy - bad guy thing. Last time you mentioned it you were talking about the bias of my classes, and now... you're the good guy and I'm calling you a bad guy? Or some political leader's a good guy being called a bad guy? I'm not sure.
+== Free Market ==
-::::I notice you keep ignoring my qualifications and you still haven't told me yours. You called ''basic'' IP concepts "disinformation". If this is a meritocracy why am I answering to someone who admits to not knowing the subject matter? I'm spending a lot of time here debating when I could be filling out [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|other fundamental IP and national security concepts]]. It really would be faster if you'd flat out say that one sysop's opinion trumps two people's advanced study, and I'll move on to something else. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)
-<---
-#So, when you quoted your teachers saying "political", you really meant "military."  Ahh, now we see point.
+==Suggestion==
-#"I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense;" when you started this discussion, you expressly stated international issues, and articulated that very well.  I never diverted into taxpayer funded abortion or eco-racism or any domestic issues.  Nonetheless, international relations still is a sphere of human activities which for the most revolves around one group of persons selling  the produce of thier labor to another group of persons, kinda like what happens everyday in grocery stores or an individuals place of employment.  Here, the "actors" usually involve governments either facilitiating trade or impeding it (and nowadays, various NGOs also are involved).
+The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)
-#"I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature;" does your literature instruct you to assign a motive of hate to someone who questions its authors reasoning?
-What we see here is, "liberals" now are just benign pacificist bureaucrats who stand in contrast to power mad militant killers.  And the fact that they are focused on thier institutional jobs which require a political appointment does not make them political, or power hungry in any sense.  The are just moreless social workers, focused on international law.  Ahh yes, the good guys win out in the end.
+== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==
-As for me, I am a qualified historian.  But the nature of my work and career remains classified.  I was for many years a partisan political operative, but don't have the stomach much for it anymore, so now I just focus on my true love, historical research and writing.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture.  It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)
-== Another definition of liberal -2 ==
+That's just the thing.  The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)).  The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]].  I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)
-:Please read my original definition again. Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats or about realists being warmongers or killers. (In fact, realists and liberals were both a response to the same act; liberals did not come to being because of the actions of realists). Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever. Nowhere in the definition is their factually incorrect material. Most importantly, nowhere (within the original definition or elsewhere since then) have I personally endorsed liberalism. (For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist).
+== Problems With the Article ==
-:Please let me know when you have actually read anything at all about modern internation political theory, and we can continue this discussion (not that we will need to once you actually read the definition for yourself). You have officially succeeded in bullying me away from a subject you know very little about. Score one for the meritocracy. Good night. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 01:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
-::Simply put, why the need to redefine the term?  Its meaning is very well understood by both liberal activists and critics of liberalism. Redefining it to some nebulous concecpt above that raises more questions than it answers just adds confusion.  It's not that different than the Cheka, OGPU, GPU, MVD, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and finally KGB just finding a new name everytime the old one falls into disrepute.  But the basic idea remains intact.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
+<br />Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.
-:::'''Rob Smith: "why the need to define the term?"'''
+There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-:::*"Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics"
-:::*""Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess"
-:::*"Either way, they are still two different meanings"
-:::*"there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal)"
-:::*"right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist"
-:::*"I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''"
-:::*"I'm not trying to redefine a term"
-:::Maybe from now on I'll just continue my part of the discussion/bullying by copy/pasting my own words. (See other responses below) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
-*Rob, Jazzman is being taught with today's revisionist thinking.  One cannot undo in some posts the years of brainwashing, which is what it realistically is. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 02:21, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
+:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-:TK, I resent the implication that I'm not smart enough to know I'm being hoodwinked. I don't know what kind of crap you learned in school, but since I didn't attend the same school you did I don't insult your intelligence by presuming I know more about it than you do. I'd expect the same respect of my eduction. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more.  On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives.  There's no denying that.  Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.
-:*Of course. If college students got the idea "liberal" meant somewhere between useless and dangerous, we'd be in big trouble.  So we have to promote nonsense like the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political.  Then throw in the mix things like denying what we just said, or redefine terms in the midst of debate.  This  moreless puts the liberal stamp on the argument just in case someone gets confused.
+: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-::One of the more pecular things about this redefinition is obscuring the line between "politcal" and "coerecive use of force."  While liberals evidently are benign pacifists only pursuing careerism in international institutions which govern our lives, we need these politcally appointed caretakers to keep in check the power mad realists who wish to take our rights away, make war, rape the planet, and all sorts of other anti-liberal schemes.
+You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?
-::It's been very "enlightening."  And Jazman, here's a realists point of view. [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/Itemid,49/type,1/]  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-:::'''Rob Smith: "we have to promote... the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political"'''
+: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others.  You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise.  Address my specific example (one of many) or move on.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-:::*"I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power'''"
-:::*""You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political '''power'''."'" ''Correct.''" (emphasis added).
-:::'''Rob Smith: "redefine terms in the midst of debate"'''
+I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)
-:::*"I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such."
-:::*"nothing is different than it was when I started"
-:::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''"
-:::'''Rob Smith: "liberals evidently are benign pacifists... [more ranty stuff about how I think liberals are better than realists]"'''
+== Application ==
-:::*"there were no value judgments made"
-:::*"There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all."
-:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats"
-:::*"Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever."
-:::*"nowhere... have I personally endorsed liberalism."
-:::'''Rob Smith: "power mad realists... [more ranty stuff you think I said about realists]"'''
+The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss
-:::*"Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate '''doesn't mean the same [thing] as what you seem to think it does''')." (emphasis added)
-:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about... realists being warmongers or killers."
-:::*"For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist"
-:::Rob, it is very obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. At first I wanted to help you understand, but now I see that it's an entirely futile effort. The definition of a liberal is World Politics 101 day 1. ''I literally learned this stuff on the first day of teaching in Intro to World Politics.'' Please let me know when you have taken 1 day of a class, and then your critique might actually have some merit. (Get it? It's that damn meritocracy biting me in the butt again! Talk about revisionism! The one with the most merit is the one with the stronger, more ''admittedly'' ignorant opinion). Your qualms with my definition come not from a problem of the definition, but of your ignorance of the subject matter. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+*No.  Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that.  This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic.  Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do.  We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view.  We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
-::::It's so simple.  I asked how being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not poltical.  You can't explain it.  Then, when you (or your teachers whom you claim to parrot) use "political power," somewhere you translate the term "power" into "coersion", Then you turn the phrase around to "power politics", which gives a whole new and entirely different meaning from "political power."  I dwell on.  I ask you again. You retort: ""Power" in this case would...can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack."
-::::Now its hard to see if your parroting your teachers or not.  Obviously, "focused on political power", and "focused on power politics" have two entirely different meaning.  I pressed you on it several times. When you finally ''did'' give a defintion of "power", it was in reference to something other than what your cited text books said.  You referred to "power politics" and military force. Being "focused on political power" does not carry this connotation. And you as yet have not explained how being focused upon institutions and international law is not be being focued on political power.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
-:::::Rob, read a book, please. Why can't I explain how it's not political? Ready for this? '''It is political'''! It has been the whole time! I said it's not '''POLITICAL POWER'''. Here it comes again:
+If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009?  [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::::'''Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power!'''
-:::::Got it? They ARE '''political'''. They are NOT '''political power'''. Understand yet?
-::::::No.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way; I'm sorry I wasn't careful enough with my phraseology. I'm not a professional teacher. However, if I clarify something, is it really that hard to use the clarification? When I say "political power is not mindless power politics" stick with that; it's what I really mean, even if you misunderstood what I meant otherwise earlier on. It's kinda hard to change the past.
-:::::You seriously need to educate yourself in this area before you critique others. You are a historian, so let me use an analogy from within your field of study. What you are asking me is akin to me asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies" and everything would be clear.
+== Question about the article  ==
-:::::Has Conservapedia changed somehow without me knowing? Have Ed Poor and Andy Shlafly turned away from their undying oath to "Conservapedia is a meritocracy"? I also hear people complain a lot about how Wikipedia is scaring away their professionals, leaving them with only novices. Was it possibly because of "discussions" like this one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:05, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
+In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
-<--
-*''You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way''
-::Typical marxist doublespeak.
-*''asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? '''You would tell me''' to '''read''' chapter one of '''"World War II for Dummies"'''
-::Me recommending commie propaganda? Not likely.
-Summary: Ok, so you come here as a student of 101 IP class (whatever IP is, I'm assuming it stands for something like "International Politics" or something; I don't work hard to keep up on academic fads).  You give a fairly liberal-to-marxist alleged "definition" of "liberal." The defintion raises more questions than it answers, as marxist gobbledygook usually does.  When quearied on it, you (a) claim your just parroting class notes and matierials, (b) begin using words and phrases that evidentally don't appear in the class notes.  Then you proceed to give your own interepretation as to what the teachers said while at the same time maintaining its all course material.
+*Wrong.  The Bible is the word of God.  We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
-Somewhere, beginning with the questions I asked to clarify the definition, everything got lost. This only supports my suspicion the definition you cited is in fact liberal-marxist gobbledygook, and your answers only support that.  You started reading things into the text that were not there, for example, the inability to see the difference between "focused on political power" and "focused on power politics" (I pray you are not contemplating pursuing and career in diplomacy).
+:James, you've been misled in your education.  The Bible is the most logical book written.  People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
-In spite of all this, and reflecting on it all, I actually have come to see the point you & your teachers are trying to make. Put briefly, the UN & liberals are the good guys, focused on law & every sweet smelling thing, whereas the handful of "realists" in the world, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and Iranian theocratic actors ignore all this stuff and do what they deem is in thier own best interests. So while Kim Il-Sung spends much of his time watching pornographic videos, the people of Cuba eat rats because the cats & dogs were all eaten decades ago, and the Iranian actor(s) dream of Islamic Middle Eastern hegemony, we all take comfort in the fact they are not lead by dreamers, but by realists.
+::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written?  [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
-So you made you point, I understand it.  And actually it is not a simple as I've characterized, but I'm not certain you understand what your teachers are saying.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
+::: God created the world, and then man.  Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it.  God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes.  This ''is'' completely logical.  Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
-:Is that seriously your response, Rob? That I'm a Marxist? And that my professors are Marxists? And that the "for Dummies" series are commie propaganda? Very professional mode of discourse. I thought sysops were supposed to be of superior quality to other editors, but that reply just makes you sound idiotic. You don't have to do a lot of work to find out that those claims are just plain wrong. For instance I have said several places on this site that I am quite the opposite of a Marxist, and I have said several times within this conversation that I am not a liberal. No offense meant, but do you read my replies, or just skim them for quotes to take out of context?
+::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]].  If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
-:Rob, how in the hell do you know what I'm adding to the text? Have you read the text? You don't even know that IP stands for international politics, how are you supposed to somehow magically know what's in an entire IP (that's international politics) text book? I can see the difference between YOUR definition of political power and YOUR definition of power politics. I said before, I'm sorry if I wasn't careful enough, but I MEANT the same thing by the two phrases. I never said the two were the same thing. This whole conversation is about the different use of the same words within two different fields of study -- is it really that hard to grasp that you can't just substitute whatever definition you want?
+Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal.  Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}
-:For some reason your eyes keep missing this next part, so I'm going to make it easier for you to read: '''''I never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My teacher never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My book never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. I have called myself a realist several times -- why would I call myself a bad guy?''''' This next part is going to blow your mind, ready? If you read my definition and think that liberals are the good guys and realists are the bad guys, it's because YOU think liberalism is somehow inherently good and realism is somehow inherently bad. It's especially baffling to me that you take issue with the fact that Sung, Castro, and various Iranian leaders are bad guys -- and ignore that the US is a good guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very conservative viewpoint here.
+:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm.  "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family.  I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)
-:The important point to remember here is that you are pushing away an editor who has made many good faith and useful edits. You obviously don't have many editors with experience in international politics or national security theory, so I found a niche in which I could help out. I have a long list of red links within both of those areas but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily decide you don't like my work. I don't think it's very good for the project as a whole to be in the practice of pushing away editors based on edits in areas in which you have no expertise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:30, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
+I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
+:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-::To quote [[Ronaldus Magnus]], "Well, ...well,... and ...well...."
+:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity.  There is none.  You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.
-::*Ok, so in IP 101 they teach "power politics" and "political power" are the samething; it must be in IP 102 they draw a distinction.
-::*You've gone onto a discussion of "realism" without satisfactorily defining "liberalism", so I'm not going to ask for a definition of "realism." Let's just not go there.
-::*You've repeatedly made personal comments, some even of disparaging character, which makes me think (a) you are not suited for the field of foreigns affairs, and (b) you are using liberal & commie methods.
-::*''"I have a long list of red links ...but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily (sic) decide you don't like my work."''
-:::Response: Nothing arbitrary about it.  See my recent comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=277033] The source I am referring to calls every US President who opposed Communism a "killer", and FDR, who faciliated Communist enslavement of 100,000,000 people, and handed over 2,000,000 people to the Communists for extermination, a "hero."
-:::So let me conclude, you better have your sources particularly well qualified -- '''that is your responsibiltiy.''' If it is commie prop, with commie intent, my job is to keep it and the offending editor out.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::*No, they don't teach that they are the same thing. Please read what I wrote and try again. I really am not going to explain this point any more because I can only say the exact same thing so many ways.
+:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws.  If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)
-::::*Realism is the opposite of liberalism. What realism is, liberalism is not. The two help define each other, and neither makes sense without the other.
-::::*You have repeatedly accused me of being a liberal, Marxist and commie, are these not personal remarks? I have observed your behavior; that these traits of yours are disparaging is not my fault.
-::::*Wait, so you are basing your Marxist claims on a reference I've never seen? That's a bit of a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberal&diff=275823&oldid=275814 non-sequiter], don't you think? I never used that source for class, or for this discussion, and until you linked to it I have never read it. It is an anonymous blog, not an international politics authority, and has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever.
-::::In conclusion: it's my responsibility to prove that I am qualified (which you define as "gives the answer I want to hear"), even though there's really no way for you to know if I'm qualified, since you aren't familiar with the subject matter. Against my repeated denials, and my declaration on my user page and elsewhere (and my 1000+ uncontested edits to Conservapedia), you continue to call me a "commie" (which is, by the way, a dasparaging remark). You claim my book (which you have not read) is propaganda, my teacher (whom you have not met) is a Marxist, and the entire field of international politics (in which you have had zero hours of training) is secretly a liberal plot to promote socialism, and I'm just not smart enough to notice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:43, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
-<--
-Ok let's beat a dead horse a little more. I never said anything about you.  I refered to some of the arguments and claims you made as being marxist, and you specifically declaimed them all and blamed your teachers.  I asked you to clarify a few times who was speaking, but never got a straight answer.
+So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009
-Here's what I think you and/or your teachers are trying to say:
-:*Liberalism is defined by "liberal institutions" such as the [[United Nations]], and the rule of law.
-:*[[Realpolitik]] characterized a succession of events and crises that finally precipitated the formulation of the United Nations.
-So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development.  And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
+My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise.  It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root.  [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert].  So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well?  If not, why not?  I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry.  A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.
-:As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
+== First few sentences ==
-:*Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't ''defined'' by institutions, it is ''characterized'' by the ''utilization'' of institutions.
+I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
-:*We didn't use the term ''realpolitik'', because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe [[Thomas Jefferson]], would you? ''Realpolitik'' does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where ''realpolitik'' takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.
+:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
+::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)
-:I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."
+:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals."  What other label do you have in mind?  Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates".  Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.
-:That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites.  There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)
-::Yah but virtually all these alleged "realist" actors are members of the liberal insitution, the UN.  And this definition of "realism" is misleading, because in truth they are virtually non-existent (Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is the only case in recent memory).
+::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216
-::That is a very interesting quote; I'd gather from it (and other evidence) RKS are trying to "systematize" the study of international relations. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I believe some of the cracks in the foundation have been identified. Namely, attempting to draw a straight line from early twentieth century liberalism til now.
+The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
+*An Islamic terrorist
+*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
+*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
+*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
+*J Edgar Hoover
+*A member of the Flat Earth Society
+*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
+*Adolf Hitler
+*Robert Mugabe
+*General Francisco Franco
-::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]].  So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us.  Do you see the problem?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
+Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.
+:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal.  Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count.  Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book.  What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me.  Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
+::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
+I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal.  Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs.  Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
+While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative.  I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense.  [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
+:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
+::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user.  This conversation is over.  Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.
+:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.
-:::Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.
+:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).
+::::As a totally sincere question:  What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"?  Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition?  Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-::::Ahh haa....''the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic).''  Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler.  And this isn't Marxist goobledygook?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
+We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions.  The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions.  Evan, did you have something in mind?  And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-::::Here's the problem: divorce this idea of "liberal" from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue [[United_Nations#UN_Sexual_Abuse_Scandals|pedophile Peacekeepers]] and the greedy [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil for Food scam]] represents modern "liberalism").  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::Are you really that thick Rob? [[User:NadhoB|NadhoB]] 20:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::::''My little finger is thicker than my father's loins.'' (1 Kings 12:10). [http://bible.cc/1_kings/12-10.htm]  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:06, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::(I'm going to ignore the "loin" comment, because frankly it brings to mind disturbing images.)
+:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means.  Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do?  If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise.  If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
+:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them.  However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::I'm assume, since you are a historian (which I believe without having you prove it, by the way), that you know that those three Germans you mentioned didn't skirt the UN, since they all died before the UN's formation. I'm guessing what you meant by the "goobledygook (sic)" comment is that those four were all realists? If so, you are making the false assumption that if one or many members of a group are bad then all must be bad. The United States is a realist power, and like it or not, some dictatorships are also realist powers. This isn't Marxist opinion, it's a fact (and anyway you haven't shown any glorification of Marxist ideas, only the association of "good" ideas with "bad" ones). So, if I use your logic, the United States can't be realist, because only bad guys are realist. This, by process of elimination, makes us liberal instead, which by your definition (the definition on the main article) means that as leader of our country, President Bush supports abortion, high taxes, same-sex marriage, fair trade, labor unions and globalism? That doesn't seem right to me, but then again, I only have a background in international politics, not world history.
+::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds.  [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent.  Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-:::::I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order."  I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously:  theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism:  only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible.  Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about?  If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)
-<---
-Go back and see what I posted before: you somehow got "liberalism" all confused and bound up with the United Nations.  The United Nations is not democratic, never was, and may perhaps never will be.  The United Nations is not even a parliament or law making body.
+Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)
-So if you wish to discuss the concept of liberalism in the field of international relations, foreign policy, "globalism", or whatever, forget using the UN as part of that definition. We may discuss it as part of an example, or in its historical context & development, its role in international relations, foreign policy and globalization, but let's not use it as part of a defintion.  To quote yourself, "That makes no sense."  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
+:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.
-:Please look at my definition. It really clears a lot of things up when you know what you are talking about.
+:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)
-:Liberalism is not defined by the UN, the UN is an example of liberalism, as it clearly says in the definition. I added it as a clarification to the reader; to give the reader something with which they are familiar in order to solidify the concept. Liberalism does not hinge on democracy, as it says clearly in the definition (you were the first an only person to mention democracy, so how it got mixed up with what I said is beyond me). Remember those "international institutions", "international law", and "avoidance of political power" things you got hung up on before (they were all in my definition)? Those are what liberalism hinges on, not democracy. Liberals generally support [[democratic peace theory]] (great another red link; guess the IP nerds all got scared off), but that's not because liberals promote and requires democracy, it's because they recognize that democracies lower the barrier towards creating a "complex interdependance" between states (another term directly from my original definition).
+:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)
-:Why does the UN have to be a law making body? Didn't we have the conversation about "actors" verses "states" already? Any state, NGO, or IGO (such as the UN) is an actor. Any actor can be classified as liberal, realist, radical, or somewhere along the scale between them (though since most can not use force, there is a high proportion of liberal IGOs and NGOs).
+::That's what I was thinking originally.  I agree with everything you just said.  The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism.  Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism.  If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]].  While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)
-:So since you tell me to use the UN as an example, and I do use it as an example, I guess you finally think something I say is right? (Have you actually been reading up on international politics? Or am I actually changing your mind?) I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition.  Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise.  Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)
-:*''the UN is an example of liberalism''
+::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific.  What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism.  You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name!  So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism.  If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)
-::This is where we have a problem.
-:*''Liberalism does not hinge on democracy''
-::This is where we have another problem.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
-::I'm just butting in here, but I think the country would be much better off without the UN. They are way too libral and only seek to stop the United States from taking actions, like in Iraq. As for the second point, Liberalism does not need democracy to florish--look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
+== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==
-::*''Rob does not have a background in international politics'''
+I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:
-:::Problem three. Minor problem, as long as you are willing to learn new ideas.
-::*''Rob clearly doesn't read my entire post, but still expects to understand my entire argument''
-:::Problem four. A larger problem, because I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself.
-::*''Rob wants to apply '''his''' definition to liberalism (as well as realism, actor, and political power) then claim my examples don't fit '''my''' definition.
-:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory.  Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).
+"Tools:
+Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
+Traits:
+Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"
-:::::If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.
+You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact.  Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?
-:::::I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
+Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.
-:::::::You're really not getting anywhere.  You're not even trying to answer my questions, and your personal demeaning responses directed at me only add weight to this being marxist trolling.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-<--- Rob, nowhere in my post did I attack you, but you imply, again, that I am a Marxist. Isn't this demeaning? This is an ad homenem argument that has no basis in this debate, and at any rate is easily refuted by my numerous edits on this site. You also complain that I'm not answering your questions. Your last post contained no questions, therefore there were none to answer. I did write a lengthy response to your statement, though; I don't really know what else I could have done to satisfy you.
-''My'' post, however, had five questions, none of which you answered. One set of questions I have asked five times total, just within my last 6 posts, and you have either not been reading my posts all the way through, or you have decided to ignore my question entirely. In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully, which explains how we can be discussing a 66-word definition for over 6 days. I take it, by the fact that your posts get shorter and more vague each time, that you have run out of criticisms. Is this a fair assessment? (And, before you say it, that's not meant to be an attack; your posts ''have'' gotten shorter, and they get less and less specific as time goes on. Your last one didn't even reference the subject in question). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses.  Fair enough?  I answered your question.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-::According to the same 66 word definition, [[NATO]] would be a "liberal organization". [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::Correct, Samwell. Collective security is a major attribute of liberalism, thanks for the helpful example. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-::I'm not really sure where to put this, but I wrote it to respond to Rob's post then had to go to class and never posted it. I'm going to keep it separate from the pedophilia discussion, because... well I just will. Begin original message:
-::Such a strong intellectual argument, Rob. I'm glad you are contributing positively and with solid points, not at all how you guys always claim a liberal would respond. I'm pretty sure if I had come up with an answer such as yours you would have complained that I was demeaning you again. If I or another editor had said that about something you wrote you would have blocked them and called them a troll. This is just another sentence to see how thoroughly you read what I write. I'm still betting on "skim". If you don't have any more arguments, it's not time to turn to ridicule. It's ok though, this probably doesn't happen to you very often. Most of the time around this site editors get blocked long before a sysop runs out of counterarguments; you just don't know what to do when confronted with this situation. Here's what you do: thank an editor for his well-defended contribution and add it to the article.
+The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
-::*Trash: says who? And why? There are a lot of people who disagree with you and you really need some actual solid points to back a claim like that up.
+It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
-::*Unencyclopedic : how? The definition is written in absolutely encyclopedic language, and it's just as useful in an encyclopedia as any other political ideology. This is also the first time you have had any problems with its use in the encyclopedia.
+On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
-::*Marxist tripe: back to the old standby, I see (though you finally dropped the "gobbledygook"). How is my definition Marxist? You've never really explained that, and the only time you've ever actually used the word is to denegrate me in some way. I'm assuming you do know what Marxism is, and you aren't simply using it as an attack word. This is a correct assumption, right?
+--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
-::*Garbage used to corrupt young minds: ah yes, insulting my intellegence again (and that of the many thousands of political scientists in the world). I fail to see how this stuff corrupts anybody at all. You also have failed to prove the motive of an entire field of political science (including those outside academia) to corrupt minds. At any rate, all you have to go on is what little I have told you about my entire political science experience. It's really rather ignorant to assume that you know everything about political science based on a couple of claims, especially when I've stated over and over that I'm simplifying some of them for the sake of argument and brevity.
-::In conclusion, you are requiring me to have an overwhelming burdon of proof, wheras you seem to just spout off things from time to time, and then drop them when you can't back them up. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but you keep calling me names and resorting to unsupported claims and accusations. I try to answer every single point in each of your posts, and then you accuse me of not answering your questions. You sort of answered some of my questions, but it's still rather clear that you aren't reading all the way down to the bottom of my posts (and not reading all of the text within my posts). I asked a question 5 times, and referred to it one more time. You last post answers it tangentially at best. I'd ask it again, but you can just read the last paragraph of 5 of my last 7 or so posts and find it there, written five different ways. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::Ok, let's divert into the specifics: The UN Security Council obviously is made of realists, isn't it?  Why would it exist otherwise?  And we know realists are invited to join this liberal organization.  How do realists get in?  They practice realism, i.e. kill all thier domestic poltical opponents, and that qualifies them as members of a liberal organization.
+On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
+--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
-:::How does the Security Council of this liberal organization keep peace?  It sends pedophiles to commit atrocities. And this is "being focused on international law."
+: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''.  Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now.  Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.
-:::Right.  We know where all this is going, don't we?  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
+Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
+You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
+--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
+:Fair?  What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need?  What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant?  What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety?  What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man?  What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare?  What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
+:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal.  After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness.  [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]<sub>(admin)</sub><sup>[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]</sup> 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
+:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind.  --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
-::::Where what is going? You seem a little obsessed with pedophiles today, Rob. Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument. I'm trying to have a rational discussion and you can't seem to get past your own opinion.
+:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion.  80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound.  But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds!  Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it.  Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it.  How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
-::::Realists have to kill all their domestic "poltical" opponents to get in to the UN? Are you nuts? Who did George Bush kill to become president? I believe you'd call me a Marxist (incorrectly, of course) if I suggested Bush violently forced himself into office.
+By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality.  Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
+--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-::::As for the Security Council there are two points to be made. The first and most important point I have made before: politics is not black and white. Just as being a member of the UN does not automatically make you a liberal, using force does not automatically make you a realist. What is the UN's process? Do they shoot first and ask questions later? No, they discuss issues for months and months before anything happens; this inaction has lead to the death of thousands of people. This is another sentence I'm putting in to check your reading comprehension. You are zero for three so far. When they do use force, it's not using it to "keep, increase, or demonstrate [its] power," which is how realists use force (it's from the definition page, by the way). The UN does not have an army, it has a Peacekeeping force. It does not build up its force to influence countries into action, it sends in force to keep the peace. Technologically, the UN Peacekeepers are not set out for warfare, and purposfully so. If you have to have a military force, this is certainly the most liberal way to do so. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals.  But I don't think it describes the evidence.  Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way.  "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice.  But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements.  The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths.  That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-:::*''Saying that the UN sends pedophiles to commit atrocities is an ignorant and baseless argument''
-:::You gonna deny an organization you've bent over backwards for days now, to say, "The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization" did not send pedophiles while it was " focused on international laws"?  I gave you fair warning above, at least twice, "forget using the UN as part of that definition", "divorce this idea of 'liberal' from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue pedophile Peacekeepers and the greedy Oil for Food scam represents modern "liberalism").  But for some reason, you wish to continue pushing the idea pedophilia is liberal.  You almost have me convinced now to put this stuff in.  Be my guest and convince me, please.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::Rob how can I ever convince you of anything, when you clearly aren't actually reading my defense? Believe me, it has very difficult so far. Did I say they did not send pedophiles, or are you just assuming that's what I must have said? It ''is'' ignorant to say that "the UN can not be liberal because it sends pedophiles to commit atrocities". Are you trying to say that they actually recruit pediphiles, and send them out with the order "go be bad little men"? This is the fifth time I've added a sentence for you to miss when you aren't reading what I write. That is not a rational or credible argument whatsoever. It's a great rhetorical argument, though -- but rhetoric is something they teach in revisionist classes, not educational ones. I didn't take the revisionest class, so I'm not really sure whether or not to associate pedophilia with liberalism or realism. It kind of just sounds like not strong enough background checks to me.
+::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism  is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-::::I really wonder why you are so afraid of calling the United Nations a liberal organization. You obviously don't like the UN, but you also don't like liberals, so what's wrong with associating them? Are you a liberal, or are you just being argumentitive because you've run out of things to say? You are trying really really hard to prove something that (a) isn't true and (b) isn't in your own interest to prove. I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act.  The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives.  As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic.  I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great.  Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
-:::::Would you agree the UN "Peacekeepers" have sufferred some damage, and people may rather continue thier own bloody conflicts rather than import US taxpayer funded pedophiles?  And where are the liberal reformers to reform this liberal mess?  What about US taxpayers who pay 40% of the UN's budget?  What are we supposed to do? Say, let that liberal organization handle its own mess it created, and continue footing the bill?  What happens when liberals start trashing the US for funding UN pedophiles?  Don't say I didn't say I told you so, cause I did.  There is a serious, serious crisis in liberalism.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:09, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website?  Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives?  And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why?  And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
-<-- Rob, do you agree with socialism? Do we have a definition of socialism on the socialism page? Do you agree with homosexuality? Do we have a definition of homosexuality on the homosexuality page? Do you agree with evolution? Do we have a definition of evolution on the theory of evolution page? (I could keep going, but I find you barely read anything I write, and my wrists are getting tired). You obviously don't agree with liberalism, but yet you still aren't allowing a definition of liberalism on the liberalism page.
+:::::Neither.  I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency.  Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame.  As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't.  Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
+::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
-The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''. If it makes you feel better, I admit that some UN peacekeepers are apparently pedophiles. What does this contribute to the definition of liberalism? Nothing. Nothing at all.
+::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan.  Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
-I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::::Ah yes good point.  Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
-:This really is one monster of a debate. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:17, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-::That it is. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:04, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-Saddam is realist?  Who opposed Saddam's removal?  Who opposed Iraqi democracy?  Who, while being focused on international law and institutions, refused to enforce thier own resolutions?  Who opposed bringing [[human rights]] to Iraq? And who to this day opposes Iraqi democracy and human rights?  Your professors & school books ignore all this, and it did not happen over night; that is to say, "liberals" abandoning "liberalism", and "liberal actors" abandoning "liberalism" isn't just a phenomenea of recent years.  Its been developing for several decades now.
+::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest.  Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was!  Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV?  We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-This isn't my definition, but it is an observation anyone can see of recent events.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
+--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)
-:Ok, we are back to Saddam then? You keep jumping around from topic to topic and it's hard to tell what will catch your interest next. To answer your questions, in order: yes, the US (in a realist way, overruling the UN's failing liberal tactics), terrorists? (unless you are talking rhetorically; remember I said I didn't take the rhetorical class), the UN (decision making is another portion of international politics study; read the book and this makes sense), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically), terrorists? (again, unless you are talking rhetorically). You did not go to my class and you did not read my text books, please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130]
+: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome.  After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again.  Maybe it can be improved.  But I don't specifically see how.  Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered.  There are studies that confirm this.  Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are.  There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals.  I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change.  But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.
-:The point is this: '''stop putting your opinion into the definition. Definitions do not judge, they describe.''' Does this make sense to you? To say "economic liberals promote the minimum wage" is ''not the same'' as saying "economic liberals promote the minimum wage because they want unemployment to increase". If you want to discuss the rightness and wrongness of the United Nations, do it on the UN page (but I certainly won't be stupid enough to follow you over there and start yet another discussion). The definition is not wrong. People have faults. There is a crisis in liberalism? Ok, great, first we have to know what liberalism ''is''.
+: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
-:I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals?  Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other.  But this isn't the case.  I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition.  Definitions are fairly solid.  Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible.  It is too far gone to be considered a transformation.  Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago.  The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans.  Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies.  Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing.  Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties.  They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc.  In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values.  So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word.  After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it.  I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it.  But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals.  I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
-::What do you know of Toynbee's theory of Challlenge and Response? [http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/1999/03/ii-genesis-of-civilizations.html#V.C.II.(b),p.364,n.1]
+==Reversion==
-:::"the challenge of being called upon to create a political world-order the framework for an economic world-order ...now confronts our Modern Western society...the challenge of the increase in material 'drive' which Industrialism and Democracy entail ...confronts our own society in our day in an unprecedentedly high degree. ...now, in the twentieth century, the problem of 'world-order' and 'material drive', which found no solution in the medieval city-state cosmos, have presented themselves again—and this time more intensely than ever—on the newly-achieved scale of the Great Society. "
+Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)
-:::This is written by probably the foremost promulgator of all the arguements that were presented to all the founding "actors" of the United Nations to induce them to participate (trust me, I know the language).  And if wish to read his material, I'll present it chapter and verse.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)
-::::I'm not familiar with Toynbee. Could you paraphrase what it has to do with this? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==
-:::::Toynbee was the Director of the [[Royal Institute of International Affairs]] and [[Chatham House]], the editor of [[Survey of International Affairs]], and other works.  Toynbee lays out all the reasons of what, how, and why the United Nations came into existence.  His works have all the arguments that were made to every nation, language, and culture, as to ''why'' they should participate in the international organization of the United Nations. It is the central theme of his life work, really beginning even ''before'' WWII when the League Treaty was still in effect.
-:::::Toynbee began his ''Study of History'' in 1927 and completed it in 1963.  He's not only an eyewitness of all the events, beginning with in his own words, when "1914 seized my generation by the throat," down through the failed League, Spanish Civil War, Appeasement, Chamberlain, Hitler, the Commintern, Japan, Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, Stalin, etc. etc. etc., with all the historical background material relating to six surviving, of 23 civilizations (in his accounting, however he allows for other variations) that have appeared on planet earth since the dawn of history.
+At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::::Toynbee made all the arguments to all founding signatories of the United Nations Charter.  Familiarize yourself with some of the background material, then we can discuss the the stuff from your 101 text book from a US government funded college campus you wish to insert.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+:How is that, Tyler?  That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
+::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
-<-- Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism. I also find it interesting that now you are asking me to familiarize myself with some random reference you give me, when I asked you to familiarize yourself with any source piked from a large body of study and you have not.
+== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
+Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-Also, you are presuming to know something about my education again, which I asked you not to do. Please don't pretend to know more than you really do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Examples_of_liberal_bias&oldid=250130] I go to a private school, with minimum government funding, at most, and certainly no government determination of the curriculum. I am attending this school thanks to the generosity of alumni and by significantly increasing my own debt. Please do not suggest that I am mooching off the efforts of the hard-working American taxpayer.
+: Could you clarify your point?  The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined.  Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)
-I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I removed the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:56, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+: I am also slightly unclear on this.  Are there only two types of political philosophy?  Conservatives and Liberals?  Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal?  If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal.  In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum.  However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Toynbee is not an observer of others, Toynbee expresses the reasons why a UN was needed. To use the short hand you like, Toynbee was an insider. Toynbee is the granddaddy of em all in expounding the intellectual arguments and reasons that ''others'' responded to when they signed up to join the UN.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:05, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
-::Uh... ok. I never said he was an observer of others, or that he wasn't an insider. In fact, I've admitted to not even knowing who the man was. Unless he argues that the United Nations was formed on the assumption that all states are self-interested rational actors who benefit best by looking out for themselves and avoiding the utilization of international organizations and laws, I don't need to study up on Toynbee to know that he's not going to refute the UN's liberalism.
+== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==
-::I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:46, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.
-:::I'll be happy to enter into a ''modus vivendi'' with you.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::About the UN, or about the whole definition? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name.  Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::Does this definition state how the liberal organization, the United Nations, and others self described as liberals, ''actively opposed'' the removal the realist, Saddam Hussein? IOW, the liberal UN & liberals opposed human rights, opposed democracy, and supported a realist.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
-<-- Sooooooo... what happened to the ''modus vivendi''?
+== Introductory remarks ==
-I've asked you this before, but naturally you didn't read it so I have to repeat myself: if I remove the United Nations from the definition do you agree with everything else? The United Nations is liberal (gasp!), but a discussion of its liberalness is more appropriate to the United Nations page. If you are ok with the rest of the definition I'd be happy to remove it and get on with my life. Maybe I'll actually have time to do some worthwhile edits to Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.
-:Well, I gave you chance to explain how libs & lib orgs support realism; you dodged the question.  Let's do the ''modus vivendi''.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:55, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
+:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
+This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition.  Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States.  An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless.  It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.
-::I "dodged" your loaded question because you brought up a modus vivendi then changed the subject, and I was trying to change it back.
+It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article.  On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view.  (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity.  The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)
-::Which part are you talking about, specifically, when you say you are willing to end the discussion? I've been willing to agree to disagree on the liberalness of the UN, and I have said six times (I counted) that I'm willing to drop this part of the definition if that's the only thing holding it up. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::Well, let's see some proposed text.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::Man, I hope you're joking. Here's the text:
+== Child porn? ==
-:::::In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues.
+Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some?  most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+:Yes.  Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago.  Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here.  Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean?  (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things.  Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
+::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want?  You've been told...now Google it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing &mdash; it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments.  (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me.  Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
+:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn.  Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn.  Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
+:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree?  [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].
+Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky!  Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
-::::[[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea.  And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known.  I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link.  So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires.  As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information.  however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::::Just don't see where any of it applies; especially in light of of liberal support of realism.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
-<--- Rob, with all due respect: what the hell? You are trying to say that the UN disproves my definition, because it's a liberal organization that acts like a realist. That is a complete logical fallacy -- it either is liberal, or it is realist. Pick one. If it follows my definition it's a liberal, and if it doesn't it's a realist. You simply ''can't'' use it as an example to disprove my definition. (And at any rate, your argument shows a poor understanding of liberalism; "supporting" realism doesn't necessarily negate liberalism.) Besides, I thought we agreed to disagree about the UN anyway. Why do you keep bringing up other issues? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+== A few minor things ==
-:Either a liberal or a realist?  Where did this come from?  Talk about a logical fallacy.  You'd do better to argue its either a carnivore, herbivore, or omnivore--that would have more standing in fact, logic, reason, or evidence.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
-::Fine, what is it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:14, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph.  In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal".  Is the link correct?  I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.
-:::Its a conglomeration of some sort. It supposedly has lofty ideals, but an abysmal record, particularly since its very founding.  It has fundamental flaws in who it allows as members. And most troubling aspect of all is the pure tripe and disinformation it indocrtinates child with in the American public school system regarding (a) it purpose, (b) how it functions, (c) its history.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::Well, if you refuse to label it, then it doesn't really hurt my definition, right? I took the UN out of the definition, just for you. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved.  As at the moment it reads:
-::::The UN is a community of diplomats living in close proximity to one another.  It almost a ''Sharashka'' of sorts, to use a Russian word. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka][http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2740/circle.html]  I see Ed Poor recently referred to it a "parliament", but it is not a parliament.  By parliament we mean law making body.  It is not a law making body, and has no legislative powers.  You will note the American representative is an Ambassador, and not a Legislator; to be otherwise would be inviolation of the [[Separation of Powers]] doctrine, as any school child can discern.
-::::It's just a location were various soveign governments get together and debate, discuss, and sometimes actually conclude various multilateral international agreements.  But unlike a parliamentary system, those agreements are only binding upon the participatory powers, and not other non-signatories to an agreement. Use of force is a separate issue, and I can discuss that separately.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."
-:::::So can we put my definition of liberal into the page, since I took the UN part out, and the UN "isn't liberal"? Is there something wrong with my definition, now that the UN is gone? (We can debate the fact that what you just described is very, very, liberal at a later time. Right now I'd rather finish this discussion before starting another.) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.  Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?
-<--
-Given the record recently (in the post-Soviet era) of child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein, how does this definition of "liberal", in "international politics", making any sense whatsoever?  It only confuses an already confused situation.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions.  I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Given whose record, the UN's? I said I'll debate that elsewhere with you. I'm more worried about the definition of liberal right now (which, again, no longer includes the UN, for this very reason). Liberalism does not have a record of "child sex abuse, opposition to human rights and democracy, support for mass murderers such as Saddam Hussein," unless you are applying the definition of liberal to the UN, which you said I could not do. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."
-::You lost me.  You brought forward an idea the "liberal" either didn't have, or made no sense in whatever "international politics" is (an idea undefined); then you proposed a defintion that made little or no sense.  Now you appear to be grasping about for some idea or concept to fit the word "liberal" together with some notion of conduct of international affairs between states or other entities, or perhaps some worldview taught on college campuses about what liberalism is or how liberalism functions or is applied in the conduct of international affairs between states and other entities.
+'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''
-::I don't see the point in stringing meaningless words and phrases together to allege some kind of ideological construct behind them.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:53, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::Actually, I've explained before what [[international politics]] is. I might have filled out the red link a week ago, but this discussion has greatly slown down my productivity. International politics is the study of political interactions between entities ("actors") on an international level. Just as politics on a city level are vastly different from those on the state level, politics on the intranational level are vastly different than those on the international level.
+::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article.  I agree that they probably dispute it.  Look at the title of the list it is in.  A liberal would not support that quote.  So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::Please tell me why my definition makes no sense. I've been trying to clarify it for you for days now. I've answered all of your questions about it, but you still seem to have some massive misunderstands of the concept. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:50, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-<--
+:NPOV = ?   I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.
-You've said many times, "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics" and it "makes no sense on the international level."  I agree with this. You and your textbooks are attempting to systemize the study of international relations, absent the historical context.  That's fine, but this page here, as you've been told several times by me & Ed, probably isn't the place to do it.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+:I am not arguing with the statement at this time.  I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:Where should I do it then? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
+::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right?  Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric.  What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K.  That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language.  I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-::Something might be able to be done with [[liberal democracy]], however this definition you're using goes beyond that.  It attempts to refer to UN participatory states such as North Korea, the CCP, and Saddam as participants and beneficiaries of these "liberal" institutions.  Frankly I'm not sure, it seems like trying to drive a square peg in a round hole.  If the subject is international realtions and international affairs (which you refer to as international politics), I'd suggest focusing upon that subject, and if the term "liberal" comes up in some meaningful context, it might apply or be used.  (But I get the impression your focus or interest is more upon trying to give a convoluted meaning to this term moreso than writing upon those subjects).
-::Yes, the study of international relations can be systematized, but it still needs historical context to give it any real meaning, and to gain any understanding of it.  I was just reading a Congressional Research Service report, ''Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Transformational Diplomacy'', and noticed that "actor" was used several times, for example, “Since 1945, the United States has conducted its foreign relations in the context of a world that practiced what can be called Classic Diplomacy. It was a world in which government-to-government relations were the principal activity....a world, in short, in which nations were '''''more sovereign and independent actors than today’s environment allows them to be''''' on the cusp of the 21st century.”2
-::I do not deny this language is gaining currency, and it would be helpful to sytematize it for students of diplomacy.  So we're just faced with the everyday common problem of having our words convey precise meaning.  "Liberalism", for example, appears to be in some sort of disarray and crisis for a period going on several decades now.  It simply would be easier to find other more descriptive words to use, than to use ambigious terminology no one agrees on.
+:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point.  I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism.  It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list.  I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think.   I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-::Finding acceptable, agreeable solutions, this at its core should be the diplomats mission. Trying to force an issue is "realism", as I've come to understand it the way you have explained.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:24, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+::::That would be super, Josh!
-:::My goal isn't to force this "convoluted" meaning, and I did fully intent to write more articles which utilized the meaning. However, I didn't want to put tons of effort into writing those articles before I found out whether or not the foundation for them was going to be there. So, instead of writing about IR/IA/IP and leaving redlinks to the fundamentals, I wanted to build from the ground up.
+::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
-:::As for systemization, this seems to be the difference of opinion between social scientists (i.e. political scientists) and historians, which I mentioned above (way, way, way above :p). I find it most useful to define the term "liberal" then look for the liberalness of modern institutions (if that makes sense). Certainly, even if liberalism is in "disarray" (which I'm not sure I agree with), there ''are'' principals of liberalism in most if not all international institutions. (It's also not accurate to say that "nobody" agrees on the definition; it is used identically in every work I've ever found in international politics). So instead of saying that no liberal institutions exist, we explain, using a common definition, the "liberal" and "realist" actions of any actor.
+==[[Classical liberalism]]==
-:::To draw an analogy to American politics, there are very few "liberals", "conservatives" and "libertarians" in America, if we use the complete definition of each of those words. However, there are many people with liberal, conservative and libertarian traits. This isn't to say that everyone is moderate, just that humans are too complex to ever fit a perfect definition. In order to function at all in a discussion of American politics (and the analogical international politics) we have to define the "perfect" value, then discuss if and how an actor deviates. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)
-::::To recycle what I said years ago, the term "liberal" was hijacked. True liberals, such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Boris Yeltsin managed to get on with thier lives without dying for a cause or trying to rehabilitate the term.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+== Liberal corporations section proposal ==
-:::::I agree that the (American politics) term "liberal" has changed since its first use. As a historian, I'm sure you know much more about the history of the word than I do. However I'm not very sure what you imply by the comment. If you are trying to say that I don't need to rehabilitate a term to discuss international politics then you are correct -- I am trying to add a new term. If you are trying to say liberalism doesn't mean what it used to you are also correct -- and that is also why I'm trying to add this new definition.
+I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.
-:::::The bottom line is that this conversation greatly lowers my productivity, and I need a straight answer from you about whether you are ever going to allow this definition or not. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:57, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft.  Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal.  Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)
-::::::IMO, it confuses both readers of this page, ''and'' students of IP.  I'd suggest getting other texts to see what language they use; it's just a theoretical definition, and an ideological one at that.  I'll check the CRS cite I made above and see what kind of language the use.  It is extrememly current (dated August 23) and is written for Congressional Representatives, House & Senate,and Congressional staffers. This is the actual text and language they use to analyize information and discuss issues.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:18, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.
-<-- Well, it didn't seem to confuse students in my class, but it's your opinion that counts since you are the one who can edit the page. I'll see if I can find other sources, but I'm rather limited (my school is pretty secluded, and I don't have a car). In the mean time, I think if you picked up an IP text you would find it enlightening. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 19:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)
-==CRS Report==
+== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==
-Ok, here's some extracts from the CRS Report :
-"'''U.S. Diplomacy — Need for Change'''
+If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
-"Many foreign affairs experts believe that the international system is undergoing
-a momentous transition affecting its very nature. For indicators of this change, they
-point to the end of the bipolar world of the Cold War, the changing nature of the
-nation state on which the existing international system is based, the rise of new
-national power relationships, as well as the growth in the number and the role of nonstate
-participants (ed. note: or "actor") in the international arena. These experts also note the impact that
-the changes in worldwide communications, due to advances in technology, have had
-on international relations. For the United States to continue to lead in this world,
-they argue, it will have to make adjustments to how it operates and relates within the
-changing system and the new, intense political aspirations causing these changes.6
-Even before the United States entered the 21st Century, however, foreign affairs
-officials and experts were '''calling for reforms of the foreign affairs infrastructure, foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs''', as well as the need to address the
-changing roles between the Department of State (State) and the Department of
-Defense (DOD) in foreign affairs. According to then Secretary of State, Madeleine
-Albright in 1999,
-:The past decade has witnessed a transformation of the world political situation...Challenges such as transnational law enforcement, global terrorism, democracy building, protection of the environment, refugee issues, and access to global markets and energy sources now compete with traditional security and political issues for policymakers’ attention. These changes demand that we reexamine the nature and basic structure of our overseas presence.7
-"'''The Foreign Affairs Institutional Infrastructure'''.
+==[[Liberals in Europe]]==
-"In the 1990s, several
+Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.
-organizations and think tanks voiced concerns about the inadequacy of the U.S.
-diplomatic infrastructure. The Department of State’s own report said that the United
-States overseas presence '''“is near a state of crisis” and “perilously close to the point of system failure.”'''8 Experts called for the enhancement of the security of U.S. posts
-and missions abroad, the right-sizing of these posts based upon U.S. interests in a
-particular country and a continual readjustment as policy needs changed, the
-'''improvement of training opportunities''' in terms of foreign language skills and jobrelated
-training, and the modernization of communications/information technology
-at the State Department and its posts and missions abroad. ....
+== this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==
-'''Comment''' : So, this is just to give some flavour of the text.  Now, while it discusses need for reform, better training, etc., and uses terms like "actor" to refer to things "non-state entities" throughout the text, one big concern is the need for reform and better trained people in the post-Soviet era.  Nowhere, throguout this 32 page document, does it use the term "liberal", or "realist."  My guess is dropping such nonsense is part of reform & better training.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:08, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties.
-:Ok, so Congressmen don't use the terms. I wouldn't really expect them to. If I were going to write a report about alternative fuels I wouldn't start using terms like "integrated gasification combined cycle" or "cellulosic ethanol", I would say "coal-derived fuels" and "E85". Unless my audience is other chemical engineers I also wouldn't go into the various catalysts, enzymes, reactors, separators etc. needed to do produce each of these fuels. Similarly, "liberal" and "realist" are useful to the political theorist, but only get in the way of a policy maker's work. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 21:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression.
-==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal organization"==
+I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made.
-BTW, using your definition, " The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization," we're having a discussion of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm liberal pedophilia] at [[Talk:Main_Page#Amnesty_International "...abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region..."]].  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-:I think this was posed to me, but that does not seem like the type of discussion I want to be engaged in. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
-:Are you sure you all aren't Liberals engaging in a massive parody of yourselves? Because thats the way it feels with some of the cringeworthy things you come out with [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+:I have often heard "FDR prolonged the Depression" stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
+:::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
-::Well either the UN is "a liberal organization" or its not, and either a pedophile is a pedophile, or its not.  Add to that, either pedophile Peacekeepers are the solution to all conflicts or they are not.
+==Nazis and pedarists==
-::Put another way, either liberal solutions are the answer to our problems or they are not. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not "verbose" but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article.  There are sadly those in all political persuasions.  Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into "throwing ones toys" at  the oponent.  Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism.  They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian.  If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article .   It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the "Nazis" has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case.  [[User:DavidMilton]]
-:::But the definition of '''liberal''' used in American politics and the definition of '''liberal''' used in international politics are not the same.  They are different concepts.  It is common for different disciplines to have separate meanings for the same word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+== headline reversion ==
-::::Thank you Porthos. That's what I've been saying since day 1. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:45, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-:::::That is exactly what I've been saying to since day one: this definition is [[classical liberalism]] and related to Wilsonian democracy, and you can't draw a straight line to modern "liberalism.'  You're the one insisting pedophiles who work for this institution are focused on international law.  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:03, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
-::::::Am I? I don't remember mentioning pedophiles anywhere. I do remember mentioning something about not judging a group by some of its members though. I have also  addressed your classical liberalism qualm up above, where this discussion is taking place. I've answered it, but you probably didn't read my answer. Please stop reaching for an excuse to find something wrong with my definition. I won't gloat if you change your mind and agree with me; I will thank you and carry on making useful edits to the encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:27, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&curid=3039&diff=909680&oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)
-Let's not label the UN as "liberal". I'd prefer to reserve the general use of ''liberal'' for American politics. US liberals might support aspects of UN policy, but that doesn't make the UN "liberal". It just means that bad people like bad policy.
+== Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==
-The UN deserves much criticism, and some of its anti-Americanism may coincide with US liberalism. But the UN is a nothing more than a parliament of the world's nations. Each nation gets one votes, even the itty-bitty ones with postage stamp area and a handful of people. Feh! I'm going to bed.... --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 00:50, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
+: And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.'
+: But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
+:::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
-:Ed, a more thorough discussion of the liberalness or not liberalness of the UN (and what we mean by liberalness) can be found in the above two sections. Beware, the reading's a doozy! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 10:22, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
+== Disarmament treaties ==
-*You ask way too much of Ed!  He would be driven to hanging himself before completing two paragraphs of that! :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:48, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)
-:Meh. Good thing the same can't be said for Rob or me, or CP would be getting some very negative headlines!! (Don't think WP's ever had a suicidal editor). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
+== "the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..." ==
-==Digression==
+The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
-Jazzman: the point you've been driving at on the ''realism v liberalism'' has always been understood, how ''liberalism'' stands for everything true, noble and good, and ''realism'' is the domain of killers and Satanists (like Bismarck, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam, and GW Bush), I direct your attention to some primary source research I am heavily involved in which anaylizes the founders of this brave new world, the aspirations of the dictators and progenators of these noble "liberal institutions" :
-:"As these three men sat down to confer, two of them, [[Stalin]] and [[Churchill]], were '''[[realist]]s''' with their eyes fixed on definite objectives in the interest of their respective governments. They wanted specific and realizable things. Roosevelt deceived himself into believing that the mere meeting of himself and Stalin was "half his battle" as he told [his son] Elliott, and that, for the rest, he wanted to create a condition of mutual trust and understanding . ''Specific agreements about the postwar world could wait, trusting to mutual good will to provide the desired solutions'' ."
+== More Biased than Wikipedia ==
-:"Major General Deane, who was at all the conferences as the head of the U.S. Military Mission, wrote :
+I'm a Conservative, and yet I think this is far more biased than anything I've EVER read on Wikipedia.  They at least don't make sweeping generalizations that make entire groups seem like dirt
-::'Stalin appeared to know just what he wanted at the conference . This was also true of Churchill, ''but not of [[Franklin Roosevelt|Roosevelt]]'' . . . His apparent indecision was probably the result of our [[obscure]] [[foreign policy]] ."'(Italics added) 74
-:"General Deane points out that Roosevelt was thinking of winning the war but that Stalin and Churchill were thinking of ''their relative positions when the war was won''. Stalin got everything he wanted - everything without any exceptions . Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his [[vain]] policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill . Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see . He got, of course, the [[United Nations]]." ([http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/The_Roosevelt_Myth-John_T_Flynn-1948-444pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=276&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 353-354]) [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:36, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
+:::maybe someday there will be a Wikia written from a Conservative point of view without all the extra stuff....though perhaps you can help create one as a counterpoint to CP. --DavidS 15:39, 20 March 2013 (EDT)
-== Negative ==
+== iraq ==
-This seems to just convey the most negative aspects of what it would mean to be a liberal. I just as easily say that conservatism means US government sponsored killing Iraqi babies!
+The two sentences:
+*Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
+*Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq
+mean the same thing. Please remove one of it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:01, 9 December 2013 (EST)
+== Hilary Clinton saying she "believes in white supremacy" ==
+Here's the entire quote:
+{{cquote|"First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher,'" Mrs. Clinton said, according to the Long Island newspaper. "Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy. ...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.'" The senator added, "So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?' ... I won't stand for it."}} [http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hillary-on-the-defensive/28068/ source]
+Obviously, Mrs. Clinton was not expressing her own views on white supremacy, but outlining a thought experiment. To say otherwise is quote-mining, and makes me wonder about the good faith of the editor involved. [[User:SaulJ|SaulJ]] 13:22, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
+::Here's the [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su3JIS9VbtY|video]]. She quite clearly isn't talking about her own views. [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] 20:56, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
+It's not going into the article. She is not advocating white supremacy. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:01, 9 July 2015 (EDT)
+::I permanently banned the editor responsible for this. I think some of his edits were intentionally wrong. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 12 July 2015 (EDT)
+== A liberal's point of view on this page ==
+This is the absolute worst thing I've read on this wiki. I can at least understand your bias, and I do agree with some supposedly. "conservative" views including being against PC culture and the fact that radical Islamic terrorists are radical Islamic terrorists.
+But this page is horrible. I'm not one to be offended easily but I find stuff like this borderline offensive. You guys are generalizing all of us into one distinct category and I'm sure not one liberal believes in everything you guys say we ''all'' do. Also fascism is an inherently rightist ideology, and I love it how people say we're all fascists; I can at least understand you guys calling us communists as they are leftists. And we don't believe in slavery either. I doubt anyone does at this point, at least outside of poor African states and Middle Eastern theocracies.
+I won't mention everything wrong about this page as there is so much it would take me hours to.
+:Regarding fascism, you're wrong about that - fascism is ''not'' a "rightist" ideology, but like Communism, is on the Left. It's for the best at this point that the main article is locked against editing in order to prevent any edit warring anyway.
+:P.S. Please make sure to sign your posts when you comment in talk sections. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::The actions taken by the "[[antifa]]" protestors and other liberals who try to silence those who disagree with them strongly resemble fascism. They think the world will be a better place if they can get rid of those who disagree with them. Also, socialism and an expansive government is an inherent part of fascism, which really is a militaristic/nationalistic version of socialism. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::Since words have no meaning - a basic liberal tenet - I don't understand why liberals are so emotionally attached to the word 'liberal'. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 12:43, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::::Two points: The left does practice forced labor. See: [[Atheism and forced labor]] 2) I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views. The reason why liberals cry "I'm offended" so frequently is that they cannot or will not form legitimate arguments. In short, they are incompetent/dishonest.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:13, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::::Pardon me for being offended that you paint me as supporting genocide and murder. Nobs, it's true that words have no inherent meaning - but this doesn't mean that they have no meaning at all. No inherent meaning means that the marks we put on paper don't have meaning in and of themselves. If they did, you and I would be able to read Japanese without problem. It's the configurations that we put those marks in and the things we're taught in life that give the marks meaning. It is also important to note that not all words mean the same things to the same people. In this sense, words have no meaning as well. For instance, you would say the verb 'revise' means 'to clean up and make better', like revisions to a paper. To me, the verb 'revise' means 'to study'. These are differences between American and British English. Revise has no meaning per se, but the culture we come from gives the words meaning. Make sense? Even the phrase 'per se' there probably has different meanings to you and I.
+:::::Conservative. Mate, I understand that you don't care whether or not I'm offended. That's your prerogative. But do understand that your article there isn't the truth. Liberals don't support paedophilia. We don't support murder. We don't support genocide. I could go on and on about the things we don't support that your article claims we do. For the sake of the truth, it's time to clean this article up. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 14:16, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::::::I agree completely. For example, I just discovered "humanitarian" to Barack Obama means "behead Christians" to me, or "responsibility to protect civilians" to Hillary Clinton means "arm and equip ISIS" to everybody else. That's what this article attempts to do, clarify meanings. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 17:54, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::::::Regarding the murder/genocide part, liberals support abortion, which is a form of murder and genocide because the unborn babies truly are human beings (a scientific fact liberals deny and replace with pseudoscience). Abortion has murdered about 60 million people since 1973 in the U.S. alone. Regarding pedophilia, it's a good thing that many liberals don't support it yet. However, if we were speaking in the 1970s, most liberals would say they opposed homosexual behavior and even abortion. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:45, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+Vive Liberté!, it is not MY article although I contributed to it in the past. I reviewed that article and made improvements as I am all for accuracy, footnoting, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:I mentioned you there because of your "I'm offended isn't an argument. The left is constantly crying out "I'm offended" as if it is some type of argument. At this juncture, conservatives could care less if liberals are offended. The internet is quite large. If your<small>''[sic]''</small> offended, I suggest crawling into your liberal cocoon so you are not offended by contrary views." comment. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 18:06, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::I didn't review the article before I made my commentary. After reviewing the article, I made some improvements. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+==This article==
+.. Is abysmal in every sense of the word. The more I poke around here and edit and such, the more I realise that Conservapaedia isn't an encyclopaedia qua encyclopaedia, it's an encyclopaedia qua propaganda machine. I propose a total rework of this article. I'll do it if no one else will. I understand that you all have conservative values, I do, but straw manning everything left of you is blatant deceit. You don't even have to be on my half of the political spectrum to see that 'Liberals support murder' is wrong. Please, it's time to clean up your work. It's very clearly wrong. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 08:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:Oh, and by the way Karajou, the last edit was on 30 April, from nobs. There hasn't been an edit in over a week. That's hardly an edit war. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:02, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::And I will prevent one.  Viva real liberty.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 09:18, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+==Thank you==
+For at least making an effort, Conservative, to revise this article. It's definitely a start. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 16:23, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:.. Never mind - we're back to where we started. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 16:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::Please elaborate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::The article has changed. We are not back to where we started. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+== liberal/eugenics/genocide ==
+You are not showing me any poll showing me that the majority of modern liberals like the eugenics aspects of abortion. That is why I moved it to some liberals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:Here's one: [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189 90% of people with an unborn baby with Down Syndrome will commit an abortion]. In Denmark, [http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/07/european-nations-are-using-abortion-to-create-a-down-syndrome-free-world/ that number is 98%, and it is in the 90s in other countries]. In Iceland, [http://www.liveaction.org/news/legal-abortion-leading-downs-syndrome-free-world/ that number is 100%]. Liberals (or anyone, for that matter) are not going to call it eugenics. But read the article [[Eugenics]], and the definition is very similar to what we see going on today. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:36, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::I should be more specific. [[Genocide]] is wiping out a race of people. There is a difference between abortion to prevent people with birth defects and genocide. Also, I am not sure what the difference is between European liberals and abortion/birth defects and American liberals and abortion/birth defects. The other issue is that some European nations are more liberal than others. Denmark/Iceland for example are two of the most irreligious European nations.  There is a difference between Hungary for example and Denmark which is less religious. Also, in Italy about 70% of doctors refuse to do abortions and abortion has restriction and can't be done after 90 days. There is a difference between Denmark and Italy.
+::After all is said and done, you can't use an overly broad paint stroke.  I just am asking for a higher degree of accuracy that was in the article before.
+::Also, not all liberals are communists. There is a difference between Denmark/Sweden and the Soviet Union/China for example. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::European liberals are liberals nonetheless, and at least when referring to eugenics, I think it's clear that liberals support it (unless you can show me that many of them oppose aborting babies with Down Syndrome). BTW, Hungary is actually a conservative nation. The post-communist nations in Eastern Europe have shifted strongly to the Right. Also, you can define the unborn as "a race of people" (though not in the ethnic sense, but they are a type of people and a lot of them have been murdered). --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::::Exactly. The unborn are not a race of people. Not all abortion is genocidal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::::No, the unborn ''are a group of people.'' Genocide is still genocide if the people in question are unborn, homosexual, or Jews. It doesn't have to be ethnic. Genocide can still be included here. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+== Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism ==
+Denmark/Sweden/France/California are not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Stop pretending that liberalism equals fascism or communism.
+Liberalism is bad. But not everything that is bad is automatically liberal. [[Political science]] done in a valid way recognizes there is spectrum of political beliefs from right to left. It is cartoonish and a reflection of binary/limited thinking to think that the words liberalism and bad are synonymous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:46, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:I have to strongly disagree with you here. Obviously, Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich, but many of the principles of their ideologies are the same. Communist ideology is strongly for labor and against business. They strongly oppose religion and support state atheism. They oppose the family and think children should be wards of the government. The same principles of liberalism.
+:Fascism is socialist, just a more militaristic and nationalistic version of it. Franco was conservative, but Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. They also practiced gun control, and Hitler supported animal rights and environmentalism.
+:We can see the fascist side of liberalism today, with the [[antifa]] movement rioting and trying to silence conservatives.
+:These people may not be called liberals by the mainstream (and in some ways they differ), but clear similarities exist. They should definitely be re-added. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::Silencing opposing views is common throughout history. In the early colonies, there was not religious freedom at first. If you were a religion other than what that particular colony was, you faced discrimination.
+::And yes I agree with you that Denmark/Sweden/France/California are different in many ways from the USSR and the Third Reich. That is why liberalism is separate from communism/fascism. In short, there is a political spectrum. I know you are aware of this matter. Let's not waste time debating the obvious. In the entire world during the 20th/21st centuries, there is not a single encyclopedia you could buy or find in a library that confused liberalism with Nazism/communism.
+::Liberalism is bad. We agree on this matter. There is no point in grasping at straws in order to try to make liberalism worse. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
+:::You're missing my point. Liberalism and fascism/communism are the same in many ways (atheism, labor, one-world government, anti-family, government control in the lives of people for communism; big government, animal "rights," environmentalism, gun control, socialism with the Nazis). These are liberals, but more extreme versions of them. They are liberals nonetheless. Also, let's not make library book the final authority, as liberals obviously don't want to call nazism and communism liberalism. Let's look at their policies and ''not'' what the mainstream thinks of them. Their policies were left-wing. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:42, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::::The secular left is made up of atheists/agnostics. The Soviet Union and communism is militant atheism. Not agnosticism or "militant agnosticism".
+::::Communism was not well known for animal rights. When I think of the Soviet Union or Chinese communism or the Russians, animal rights activism does not spring to mind.
+::::The environmental record for communism is very poor compared to liberalism. For example, please read the article [http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/ If You Think Communism Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment]. Germany is fairly liberal, has a high standard of living, produces many things and does a lot of exporting. But its record in terms of the environment is far better than most, if not all, communist countries.
+::::This may be correct and I have not thoroughly researched it, "The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights."[http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/ecology/nazi_ecology.htm] But conservation is different from environmentalism so I am not sure how fair it is to say that Nazism practiced environmentalism in terms of its ideology. See: [[Conservation vs. environmentalism]] The bottom line though is you have to explain things. Not just bury them in footnotes with a few words. You will destroy any shred of credibility the article has if you do this.  I did clean up some ridiculous claims like Attila the Hun being a liberal.
+::::European social democracies which are liberal are different from communist countries. People can do open air preaching in many/all liberal countries in Europe. You cannot do that in communist countries.
+::::There is a political spectrum.
+::::You can certainly have a section in the article on the more extreme liberals and clearly mark it as such, but be sure to cite legitimate examples and clearly explain it. Specifically, clearly explain things and don't bury them in the footnotes. Don't just have two words if people are not commonly aware of a matter. Not everyone who reads the article is a hard core conservative or is very informed about politics. For example, Anita Dunn, who was Obama's debate coach and who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009, named Mao as her favorite political philosopher.[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/10/17/obama-debate-advisor-anita-dunn-mao/]  That is a legitimate point to make as far as far left liberals.
+::::And let's do use the entire world's libraries for decades and decades and decades and use the world's printed encyclopedias and not pretend they don't exist for the sake of ideological fantasizing. Liberalism is not Nazism or communism.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:30, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+I updated the article and documented the communists moving closer to capitalism and the American liberals being more sympathetic to communism. I also created a [[liberal intolerance]] section of the article and near the lead of the article I put how liberals were limiting free speech. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:51, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+==Update photo==
+Let's update the photo from Obama to [[Elizabeth Warren]]. This will help keep the article fresh and timely. Every time a new piece of idiocy comes out of her mouth, we'll something to add explaining how she's wrong and keep the page current. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 23:17, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+:Go ahead. Makes sense. Obama is largely yesterday's news. So is Hillary Clinton. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+::Good. I'll try to find a picture of her with a booger hanging out of her nose. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 23:44, 8 May 2017 (EDT)
+== Liberal intolerance article greatly needs expansion - especially in light of recent events ==
+The [[liberal intolerance]] article greatly needs to be expanded - especially in light of things that have happened since Trump appeared as a political candidate and was elected (violent demonstrations, violence used to prevent speakers on campuses, etc. etc.).   Right now, the [[liberal intolerance]] article is merely one sentence.
+If the [[Liberal intolerance]] article was expanded, the [[liberal]] article could have a section on liberal intolerance.
+The liberal article is a popular article. But it turned into a mess and I cleaned it up as I indicated on the talk page.
+The liberal article could be much better. Modern liberalism is often intolerant of conservatives/conservatism. The way the [[liberal]] article was trying to make this point was poorly done. Slapping the word Stalinism, etc. on the article doesn't cut the mustard. A section on liberal intolerance with a link to a well-supported article would cut the mustard. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+:I started the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:53, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+::In that article what's needed is not just a laundry list of instances, but an in depth anaylsis as to what basic beliefs liberals hold that they feel justify censoring, silencing, intimidating, harassing, lawbreaking, using acts of violence up to and including extermination againsts persons they deem non-liberal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 16:34, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+:::RobS, Go for it!!!! It could be a very informative and popular article if it was done right. If it was helpful to readers, you could have a very small section of examples which gave a link to a separate article giving a laundry list such as [[Examples of liberal intolerance]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+== Liberalism and communism ==
+It might be a good idea to consider adding this to the article: [http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/05/09/california-may-allow-communists-work-openly-state-government/ the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions]. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
+== Vandalism ==
+I checked the "difference" on that last attempt of vandalism by Click Your Heels, even though I don't usually, and it may have been one of the funnier vandalisms here, if a bit poorly attempted.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:28, 28 May 2017 (EDT)
+:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1350635&oldid=1350476 I can see why]. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:14, 4 June 2017 (EDT)
+References needed for quotes.
+== All liberals are secular? ==
+This seems to suggest that all American liberals are secular, which is nonsense. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:27, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
+:It's true, God does not require a high IQ to be a believer or Christian. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 15:44, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
+::True. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:46, April 18, 2022 (EDT)