2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 738:
Line 738: + +
→Protection
**As to the 2000 Debate quote: yes this is interesting stuff, but it's probably not being used properly and certainly, as you appear to agree, not on the correct page.
**As to the 2000 Debate quote: yes this is interesting stuff, but it's probably not being used properly and certainly, as you appear to agree, not on the correct page.
**By interesting I mean, pretending that 911 did not occur, and quoting a foreign policy position that refers to the 1990s, while ignoring rather significant foreign policy developments since, is this a legitimate use of source material? Gore's statements regarding sanctions are specificially noteworthy--and they indeed '''are of more significant importance''' in determining what "liberal" and/or Democratic party views on foreign policy '''really and truelly''' are, rather than dredging up out of context Bush quotes to criticize the currrent Administration. The issue is not, 'Do liberals support Bush's policy now or ever?'; the issue is, '''''What is the liberal position on foreign policy?''''' And bringing George W. Bush's name into the discussion does absolutely nothing to answer that, other than add weight to the view that there are no overrriding moral principals behind a liberal foreign policy position, and liberal views on foreign policy are driven by the whim of fortune and partisan idiocy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
**By interesting I mean, pretending that 911 did not occur, and quoting a foreign policy position that refers to the 1990s, while ignoring rather significant foreign policy developments since, is this a legitimate use of source material? Gore's statements regarding sanctions are specificially noteworthy--and they indeed '''are of more significant importance''' in determining what "liberal" and/or Democratic party views on foreign policy '''really and truelly''' are, rather than dredging up out of context Bush quotes to criticize the currrent Administration. The issue is not, 'Do liberals support Bush's policy now or ever?'; the issue is, '''''What is the liberal position on foreign policy?''''' And bringing George W. Bush's name into the discussion does absolutely nothing to answer that, other than add weight to the view that there are no overrriding moral principals behind a liberal foreign policy position, and liberal views on foreign policy are driven by the whim of fortune and partisan idiocy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
The entry on interventionism said that Liberal currently (post-911, although to their credit they support Afghanistan, and in the beginning Iraq as well)) oppose nation building (we a can agree on this) but that this position is traditionally neither liberal nor conservative, since for example G.W. Bushopposed nation building in the past while Gore favored it (and I guess we can agree on this as well). Opposition to nation building is not a core liberal belief, nor is it it a conservative belief. And the Gore-Bush debate illustrates that nicely. And that is exactly what the old version said. And thats why it should be restored. [[User:Order]] 11 April, 12:35 (AEST)
==Liberal vs libertarian==
==Liberal vs libertarian==