Talk:Liberal

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MfD (Talk | contribs) at 04:51, 20 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! 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

This article has been nominated to be considered as a Featured article.

Talk:Liberal/Arch1 Talk:Liberal/Arch2

Wikipedia Citations

  • It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly

Andy... falsehoods?

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-AmesGyo! 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --BobD 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


opposition to a strong American foreign policy
where in that WORK IN PROGRESS [1] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a strong American foreign policy? Many Liberals may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a strong American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks liberals believe and are not an encyclopedic description of liberal thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene Commandment 5: Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
It is time someone unlocks this article. User:Order 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. User:Order 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.Ian St John 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives precisely because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". RobS 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Neoclassical liberalism

I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. Ylmw21 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Split?

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). GodlessLiberal 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

"Silly" Definition?

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --PF Fox 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"American Liberal?"

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous. eg. -taxpayer-funded abortion -censorship of prayer in classrooms -a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--ResistanceFighter 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Which of the above three examples of liberal beliefs do you dispute?--Aschlafly 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Template

Could an admin add Template:Political ideologies to the bottom of the page? thnx, MfD 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)