Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal"

Revision as of 03:38, August 17, 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

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)

"Strong" foreign policy

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years? If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? user:Tanktunker

• I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous Liberal said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
  • He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tanktunker (talk)

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [1]. We could always bring back "opposition to American foreign policy ^[1] which advocates human rights ^[2][3] and democracy" ^[4]

1. ↑ Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme(PDF).
2. ↑ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals" by Gal Beckerman, The Forward, September 30, 2005.
3. ↑ Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil, Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003.
4. ↑ President Bush's address to the United Nations, United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in Vietnam. RobS 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

• Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.

Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of deceit as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. RobS 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

• Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone explain to me...

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

One of the liberal views is environmentalism. Certainly Greenpeace engages in environmentalism and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --Crocoite 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Definition?

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal is. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - Borofkin2 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. RobS 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

• The do all believe in one thing, I find: Deceit. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice deceit." - Borofkin2 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. User:Order 24 July

We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. RobS 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - Borofkin2 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. User:Order 24 July, 11:50

How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for al-Qaeda? RobS 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. User:Order 24 July 14:00

Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. RobS 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. User:Order 24 July 14:45

I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? RobS 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [2]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. User:Order 24 July 15:15

I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further al Qaeda's stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. RobS 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. User:Order 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)

<-- OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:

• A $500 per child tax increase.
• A 55% death tax.
• A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
• A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
• A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [3] RobS 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term "conservative." The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, liberal Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for "liberal."

This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

How some something like:

Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.

Feel free to start with your own definition. User:Order 25 July 11:50

If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. RobS 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

taxpayer funded abortion

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:

1. Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
2. State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).

Tester 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

You're not serious, are you? Rob Smith 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, Liberals also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well. I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

File:Lol.gif

• Rob, feel free to "borrow" my LOL for all such posts. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Great! Will do.

"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine. It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase. Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [4] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports") "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their real intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to exterminate minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes. This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."

So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion." Rob Smith 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? Kazumaru 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website. But it does make for a starting point here [5] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor"). Rob Smith 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... Kazumaru 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)