Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Is this a joke?)
m (Reverted edits by RodWeathers (Talk); changed back to last version by Alexjohnc3)
Line 75: Line 75:
  
 
Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)
 
Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)
 
== Is this a joke? ==
 
 
Wouldn't an article on liberalism actually include what the precepts of liberalism are, eg. religious freedom, equality of all, etc...?
 
This seems to be a childish diatribe against SOCIALISM as opposed to anything remotely liberal. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:21, 23 December 2007 (EST)
 

Revision as of 22:29, December 23, 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.
Conservlogo.png


Archive 1|Archive 2 |Archive 3

This entry is really quite pathetic. If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. Underscoreb 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --Andy 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Why? Rob Smith 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)
It's because Fred Phelps is a liberal activist (see the discussion on the talk page for an explanation).
By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. Feebasfactor 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Different definitions of Liberal

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.Alloco1 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. J2xl 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?Alloco1 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Pathetic Article

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.

I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? Underscoreb 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. Rob Smith 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. Underscoreb 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a stable version. Rob Smith 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Liberal Failures

Rush Limbaugh had a section in the December 2007 Limbaugh Letter called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator.

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

  • Economy/Taxation
  • Health Care
  • Law/Criminal Justice
  • Environment
  • Education
  • Immigration
  • Culture
  • National Security

Rush says "Liberalism doesn't work. It fails, every time it's tried." [1]

Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

  • Forced School Busing
  • Welfare
  • Luxury Tax
  • Alternative Minimum Tax
  • Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
  • Free Love
  • Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. [2]

References

  1. Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, Rush Limbaugh, The Limbaugh Letter, December 2007, pp. 13-15
  2. A History of Liberal Disasters Jeffrey Lord, The American Spectator, 11/6/2007

We could create a new page called Liberal Failures or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --Crocoite 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Denial of gender differences by liberals

"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? Alexjohnc3 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)