Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 109:
Line 109: + + Line 135:
Line 137: + Line 140:
Line 143: + + + + Line 160:
Line 167: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias (view source)
Revision as of 21:09, August 5, 2016
, 21:09, August 5, 2016→Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead.: Good suggestion. I'll make the change.
I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Of course you would call it hypocritical. That's because you refuse to accept the authority that Conservatives based their comments on, which the vast majority of their comments rely on. Conservatives use authoritative sources such as the Constitution or the Bible, where liberals say things based on nothing but their opinion as the authority. That is the difference.
== Crocoite - Civility? ==
== Crocoite - Civility? ==
Citation needed
Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
== Protected ==
== Protected ==
I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no, athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Dude, it's spelled "atheists" ("i" after "e", except after "c" ...). And, by the way, most [[liberals]] do deny that the God created the world in six days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::"Science" proved that wrong, Andy. <sub>pun intended</sub> +_+ <sub>always tired</sub> [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
== Confused ==
== Confused ==
Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)
== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==
as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)
==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
== Deletion suggestion ==
That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)
==Controversial==
[[Iconoclastic controversy]], [[Global Warming Controversy]], [[Creation-evolution controversy]], [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]], [[Abortion controversy]], [[Easter controversy]], [[Intelligent design controversy]], [[Video game controversy]]. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
== Grammer ==
shouldn't the first letter of every sentence be capitalized and I was wondering if those external links could be changed to referenced??? Just trying to help. respond to me on my talk page. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)
== Missing ref tags ==
I would make the change myself if I could; Point #8: "Silence Speaks Volume" has a few links next to it that do not have ref tags. Point #31 has ref tags, why not point #8? Thanks to whoever fixes this. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
== Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead. ==
Concerning: "#unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge"
A better word instead of "unjustified" is "unsubstantiated" there.
:Good suggestion. I'll make the change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (EDT)