Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,634
edits
Changes
→Protection: opposition to Bush does not define the moral guiding principals of liberalism
**Where have I edited since restoring the original language and removing the questionable content?
**Where have I edited since restoring the original language and removing the questionable content?
:::You changed it [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=91525&oldid=91473 here], protected it one minute later [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91525 here], and continued editing it [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91530 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91539 here], and other parts of the same article a few times since. [[User:Order]] 11 April 12:30.
:::You changed it [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=91525&oldid=91473 here], protected it one minute later [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91525 here], and continued editing it [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91530 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=next&oldid=91539 here], and other parts of the same article a few times since. [[User:Order]] 11 April 12:30.
::::The Fisk cite I thought was agreed to stay, yet somebody removed it; then came the page protect; then a fx fmt. Then I removed the isolationist claim which itself, in context, in the mainspace, said was irrelevent to so-called "liberal views". You and I have discussed this here, and I think we agree it is irrelevent to liberal views, and is available on this talk page for discussion as to ''why'' it should be included. And as I pointed out just below here, opposition to candidate George W. Bush, or President George W. Bush '''does not define for us what are the moral guiding principals of liberalism.''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
**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)