Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal"

Revision as of 20:47, July 12, 2007

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Talk:Liberal/Arch2

Wikipedia Citations

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

Andy... falsehoods?

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

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

opposition to a strong American foreign policy

where in that WORK IN PROGRESS [1] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a strong American foreign policy? Many Liberals may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a strong American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks liberals believe and are not an encyclopedic description of liberal thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene Commandment 5: Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.

WhatIsG0ing0n 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.Ian St John 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives precisely because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". RobS 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Neoclassical liberalism

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

Split?

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

"Silly" Definition?

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

"American Liberal?"

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

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

All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...

I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" Karajou 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--Penguin 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).

Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--PerpetualAngst 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

Template

Could an admin add {{Political ideologies}} to the bottom of the page? thnx, MfD 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Censoring Talk pages?

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

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

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

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

Censorship of prayer in classrooms?

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

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

Wennberg, you're in liberal denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--Aschlafly 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --Wennberg 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

edit suggest

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

Emotive distinction

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

Slight syntax change

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

Some problems with Views

The following items from the list of views need some work:

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

Hope this helps. -Harmil 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)