Talk:Liberal

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noodles (Talk | contribs) at 06:11, 24 March 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

This site is a joke. Compare to wikipedia which has an intelligent hisotry and dicussion. This site has the same level of intellect as George W.

This page has been certified as ART by BAR CORPORATION. It can be found in our archive under the moniker "cert. art #996" in the "Narrative Fiction" category. Congratulations!

prohibiting prayer in school is not a liberal objective. Mandatory prayer over a loud speaker, however, should be prohibited. Talking to God does not require infringing on other children's right not to have to engage in such activities.


How is gun control liberal? I mean like, doesn't sound conservetive? --Will N. 18:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

The Constitution allows us to own guns, liberals want to confiscate all our guns in spite of the Constitution saying that is illegal. Miles 17:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I've been intrigued and annoyed at the one-dimensionality of the political spectrum in the United States. I can't honestly quarrel with Aschlafly's list. If this were Wikipedia I'd want to see a source for it... and of course it has a conservative spin ("protection of obscure endangered species")... but it wouldn't surprise me if you could pull that list, or something very like it from election-year national Democratic Party platforms.
But isn't it weird? These positions have very little to do with each other. Years ago I was trying to explain American politics to friends from the Netherlands and they found it baffling. They didn't see at all why someone who was for gun control would necessarily be expected to support legalized abortion, why someone who supported legalized abortion would necessarily be expected to support environmental protection, or why someone who supported environmental protection would necessarily be expected to oppose prayer in schools.
I don't know where this one-dimensional polarization comes from. Perhaps the two-party system leads to political leaders trying to sort political positions into neat packages and sell the public on an "us-versus-them" situation.
I always thought Jimmy Carter got a bad rap, and that part of the reason was that he actually voiced moderate positions, and that he did not fit neatly into a one-dimensional political spectrum. Dpbsmith 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
The two-party system and its polarisation are the cause of almost all that is currently wrong in US politics. It has created an environment where only the extremists have any chance of getting to the top - a moderate, or any sensible person, will succeed only in incuring the wrath of both liberals and conservatives. - Suricou
But that's assuming liberalism and conservativism lie at polar opposites. RobS 20:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

European Liberals

This part near the end of the artical is totally wrong: "Note, that liberal in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance."

Best example is the UK Liberal Democrats, they are Left. How can Liberal views like wealth distribution be mixed up with a "center-right" stand.

This is what happens when you giving editing rights to just one, presumably American person. --Mj 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Sort order of priorities

How about sorting the points in the artical in to some more meaningful way. Maybe you could even break off core belief's, like wealth distribution from current issues like abortion. --Mj 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Parochial definition

I have long had a real problem with the way that this word is defined in America.

Yes, I know this is Conservapedia and we are all about American usage. But the way this particular word is defined in America seems, in some ways, perverse. I wonder if this definition ought to be a little broader. I am prompted to say this because of the line in the article that says '"Liberal" today means the disfavoring of individual responsibility in favor of collectivism or egalitarianism'. That is almost the opposite of my understanding of the word. What about John Stuart Mill and the freedom of the individual? --Horace 19:14, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Well, for purposes of this article, I'd suggest: slap a qualification on it: "In the present-day United States, the word liberal means..."
Then start another section or something. Dpbsmith 19:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
P. S. Don't you just love it that the traditional dead-white-European-male Harold Bloom, "Western canon" educational curriculum is known as the (wait for it...) Liberal Arts? (rimshot) Dpbsmith 19:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)


Vandalism?

The last three listed "characteristics" of liberalism seem to be sarcastic caricatures of conservative positions. I'm especially suspicious because the evolution reference seems redundant, and it also directly states that creationism is not science. I think I'm going to remove the last three. MountainDew 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Aliens?

Do Liberals really attempt to achieve amnesty for illegal aliens? --Itsjustme 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Some do. MountainDew 21:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

So does George W. Bush. --Gulik 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But are they not aware that aliens are sometimes really dangerous? It is O.K not to hate every foreigner, ... but aliens? --Itsjustme 21:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

If my ancestors had had your attitude, we'd all be speaking Navaho today. --Gulik 22:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
  :Or you'd just be speaking your butchered version of English, moron. Opacic 05:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you advocating genocide? Or are you saying a genocide wouldn't have happened? Mustaine12390 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Why were my changings reverted?

I made some changings to the article, by adding some more information. But they were reverted without any reason. I think the main reason why this project was started is because they used to revert imortant contributions to articles in wikipedia. So there should not be removement of important facts that are added. Or do I get something wrong? --Itsjustme 21:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The "reversion" key does not allow explanation. Let me explain here. Your additions were not factual enough. Saying liberals want "reform" is meaningless. You said they want more wealth for the poor. No one is against that either. The point of this entry is to describe how liberals distinguish themselves in their beliefs. No one favors harming the environment either.--Aschlafly 21:36, 7 March 2007 (EST)
The "reform" comes from "American Heritage Dictionary". Of course no one is against more wealth for the poor. But the liberals are tending to take a lot of money from the rich to achieve that. And of course no one favours harming the environment. But most just do not really care. Look who is driving the hybrids. Most of them are liberals. No American but Japanese cars. --Itsjustme 21:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)


Foreign Treaties are liberal?

First off, treaties by their nature are foreign since we sign them with other countries. So that is redundant. Secondly, many conservative presidents have signed treaties, so how can they be a "liberal" goal? Thirdly, conservative presidents have signed disarmament treaties, or has everyone forgotten Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in 1988? --Dave3172 10:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Well, President George W. Bush has made it clear he's not going to obey any treaties that might endanger America, so he's not as liberal as SOME presidents. --Fullmetajacket 00:30, 11 March 2007 (EST)
I believe that any President is bound by the Constitution to honor treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. To do otherwise could well lead to a breakdown of constitutional principles such as separation of powers.Second Amendment 01:27, 11 March 2007 (EST)
President Bush has also made it clear he is also not bound by the "separation of powers" if it might endanger America. --Fullmetajacket 16:31, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

References for the "typical" liberal positions?

Please add references for each position and maybe try tor sort it. I would do it if i would be competent on the american political system and culture; sadly i am not. Maybe one could sort it into the categories "economic beliefs in international trade", "economic beliefs regarding financing public services" and "relation between state and citizen". So something like "funding abortions from tax money" is a combination of "health system funded by taxes" and the belief "abortion is a personal health decision by the women" (i am not judging about either of the claims; my opinion is that the state should do everything to decrease the reasons for abortion. It is a shame for any industrialized nation that pregant women see economic causes as a pressure to commit an abortion.).

So clarify the fundamental opinions by references.


Reference to socialism

It used to say that many views of liberals are similar to socialism. This just shows little knowledge of socialism, and the context it operated in. Socialist regimes were often bad for the environment, let criminals and gays in disappear in gulags, were very restrictive on immigration (see guest workers in East Germany), were critical of evolution, oppressed independent trade unions (Solidarnosc in Poland), engaged in the arms race, were militaristic, supported para military organizations, and some even were outright opposed to abortion (Romania). Also issues such as welfare didn't apply, since these countries didn't know this concept.Order 13:45 (AEST)

Increased taxes?

I find it interesting that "increased taxes" is listed among the goals of liberalism. Granted, there is among liberals a generally greater emphasis on social programs geared towards helping the less-fortunate members of society. Since those programs cost money to operate, there is perhaps a tendency towards taxes higher than we would otherwise see without those programs in place. But it seems a bit of a stretch to say that liberals are focused on raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes. Why is "increased taxes" listed?

Welcome, and please sign your entries with the signature button at the top. Increasing taxes is a way of increasing government power and equalizing wealth, regardless of whether the money is really needed for government services. Liberals support increasing taxes even when there is a budget surplus. Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagee.--Aschlafly 00:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
"Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes." That's a pretty bold statement. John F. Kennedy, for example, called for one of the biggest tax cuts in history in 1963. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9387&st=Kennedy&st1=tax.--FPiaco 19:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Provide an example saying conservatives never raise taxes then Aschlafly. It's easy to say something and then say "prove me wrong". If you're going to make a claim like "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes" it's up to you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Take a look at your court system if you want to see this in action. Dallas 06:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Re: Increased Taxes

I didn't notice the signature item earlier. I'll be sure to use it from now on.--Blr 01:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandments?

Doesn’t this list break some or all of the following commandments?

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
  2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
  6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
  • Agree. I'm new here but I've already noticed that people don't seem to cite their sources...


So - if this breaks the commandments - shouldn't' it be deleted?

The commandments state: "Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked."

So should not most of this be deleted? It's almost all all unsubstantiated, unverified opinion, and the commandments don't allow for discussion - they just say edits which violate these rules will be deleted.

British_cons (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, if we held people up to the commandments aschlafley would had to have been blocked ages ago. --Jack 00:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal outside of the US

You cannot call liberals outside of the US socialists. Neither are socialists abroad liberal. In many countries, the Liberals are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. -- Order 12 March 2007, 23:11 (AEST)

For liberal parties in Europe check [1], for socialist parties check [2]. These are different organizations, different parties. -- Order 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
Yes, that is one definition of liberal. But, as conservapedia aims to maintain a pro american stance the American definition of liberal is important too. The British Labour Party (who fit the US definition of liberal) are socialists as are many other european parties.--AustinM 08:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Does Pro-American mean Anti-World (or "ignore that US-people are less than 5% of the world and that there is a world outside"?) If you write about liberals outside the USA, you have to see what liberals outside the USA are. --Itsjustme 19:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


So why were MY changes deleted?

Regarding the taxes issue: In the discussion above, Blr had a good point. Liberals do not support increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. They support expansive government and social support programs (welfare, Medicare, etc.) that require funding. This creates an increased tendency to raise taxes, but does not mean that liberals necessarily want to. Additionally, in the above discussion, the justification for keeping the statement on the page was a comment by Mr. Schlafly, stating "Liberals never, ever call for cutting taxes. Please provide an example if you disagree." I did provide an example, and then changed the page; my change was erased within 1 minute. If this site wants to be unbiased, it ought to follow its own first commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." The support for the increased taxes claim was negated using a strong counterexample. So how does the claim remain "true and verifiable"? With its support gone, the claim is just opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --FPiaco 09:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


I agree. As noted above, this page seems to violate three of the site's commandments. Given that there are only seven of them that's quite good going. British_cons (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally

It is impressive how you make no attempt whatsoever to make this a respectable encyclopedia. I would have thought you people would keep your bias more subtle than this but apparently not given that you seem to think "support of gun control" and "taxpayer funding of abortion" are the two views which are most synonymous with the liberal cause. I imagine that seeing as you are all true patriots and believe in freedom of speech and democracy, this post will probably last a little less than the amount of time it took me to write it, but at least I got it off my chest.

Spanky, did you completely make up your entry about Peter Singer? Is that a liberal thing to do?--Aschlafly 16:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Links?

I was quite a bit disturbed to find that most issues here don't link to their corresponding articles. I created an account to try to make them links and found that the page is protected without even using the template to say that the page is protected. --Chuck SMITH 06:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

False Statement

The statement that Liberals wish to prevent prayer in schools is false. Liberals wish to prevent organised prayer in public schools. Nirgal 13:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why can't this page be edited?

It seems to me that this "conservative" effort is little more than a means for some to vent their frustration with the Wikipedia audience. If this were meant to be comparable in scope and superior in quality then more due diligence would be done so that pages were considered accurate, not just conservative. In evaluating the liberal page, it seems that a concerted effort has been made to infuse conservative bias into the definition of the topic. That, to me, is the very definition of propaganda. Unless editors choose to make edits that reflect the truth,and not just conservative spin, this site will become irrelevant. Menkatron 12:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's the feeling I've been getting too. I think it's just that certain people here don't like being proven wrong, so when someone like me attempts to put up factual statements (or at least remove false ones), those certain people (or maybe person) lock the article. You can see the "discussion" about increased taxes above. I'm still waiting for my changes to be incorporated into the article. Good luck in removing the propaganda. --FPiaco 09:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Giving to the poor

I am surprised to see "distributing wealth from the rich to the poor" listed as a "liberal" belief -- seems to me this is (or ought to be) a Christian belief, as Jesus himself says to the rich man "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Mark 10:21).

Boethius 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like you are trying to say Jesus is a Democrat? Hardly. Besides, I think you are taking that Bibical statement out of context. Just an FYI. Also, aren't the liberals the ones behind the "warming climate hoax"? Miles 17:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
No, I don't think that Jesus Christ endorses any political party. But His teaching has consistently been that it is the obigation of the wealthy (and indeed, of everyone) to give to the poor, as well as to minister to the sick, visit those in prison, and otherwise render comfort to their fellow men. See Mark 12:41-44, Matthew 25:36, and many other passages. The way in which any given political party, or person interprets or applies those teachings is up to them; it just seemed to me odd that this idea, phrased this way, would be attributed to "Liberals". Boethius 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
You appear to be tarring alot of things with the same brush, Miles. That is a gross generalisation of liberalism. Also, given that it is unclear whether climate change is because of human activity how can you say "warming climate hoax"?MatteeNeutra 18:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought it had been proven to be a hoax, sorry if I am wrong. Miles 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Alternate defintion of liberal

Currently we have an alternate definition of liberal that is "anything that is not conservative" while we have a definition of conservative that is "one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue." This strongly implies that liberals do not adhere to personal responsibility and moral virtue. Isn't that needlessly inflammatory? Myk 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Beliefs

I am not sure that you guys understand what liberal means. Here is a list of things that are not liberal on the list you provide: support of gun control, taxpayer funding of abortion, support of gun control, distributing wealth from the rich to the poor, government programs to rehabilitate criminals, increased taxpayer funding of public school, taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care, increased taxes, support of government programs such as welfare, teaching of evolution (this isn't a set belief by liberals or conservatives, generally though liberals favor the teaching of evolution, however, this should not be added as a set belief)

The problem with this list is that you say it is the beliefs of liberals. However, these are the beliefs of Democrats and not liberals. You guys are making a common error that many citizens make. The error is using liberal as a synonym of Democrat. Democrats though are not true liberals. Democrats are economically conservative. The party that is a true liberal by definition would be the Libertarian Party. Essentially what a true liberal wants is no government at all. In a truly liberal society there would be total anarchy. Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Increased taxes is conservative economic issue which Democrats would, yes, be in favor of, but liberals would not be in favor of it. Gun control is another issue that is wanted by some Democrats, however, this too is a conservative belief. Surely this site should know what its beliefs are if it considers it to be a conservative site. This site could be considered a liberal point of view due to the economic views expressed on this site. However, really this site should not consider itself to be liberal or conservative, but rather a Republican view. The website should be www.Republicapedia.com. I don't see how you people can consider yourself conservative when you don't know what conservatism is. Republicans are the biggest bunch of liberals I know.

Minors under 16 years use this site. So I feel that this site should be as accurate as possible and not lie to the innocent children viewing this site. --Liberalmedia 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I must admit that I would have thought the same thing - but not being an American citizen - I assumed the word had acquired a different meaning over there. Presumably this explains why none of the entries actually links to anything to source the apparently unsubstantiated opinions expressed here.--British_cons (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It would help to have some subheadings in this article - the bulletpointed list could be put in a section entitled 'Liberalism in America' or suchlike, and have another section on the libertarian/right-leaning definition more commonly used in Europe etc. --Rafa 17:52, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlock Page

Could you please unlock this page so that people can edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liberalmedia (talk)

Conservapedia:Request Unprotection is thataway. --Interiot 12:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Nonsense

This article is a study in overstatement, overgeneralization, and innuendo. Since it violates the first of the Conservapedia Commandments, I propose it for immediate deletion. Boethius 11:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Those things are ok sometimes depending on who wrote them. Myk 11:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberals and Saddam

The portion about being supportive of Saddam is particularly egregious.--Murray 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is unfair to the many liberals who oppose any dictatorship. The piece about liberals is just there to infume them. Lets be fair, because we wouldn't like it either if the article on conservative said that conservatives have no problems with human right violations and murder, such as in Chile under Pinochet or Burma now, as long as the regime works with them. User:Order

This is an undeniable fact. In 2003, so-called liberals were the only group who (a) identified themselves as liberals and (b) opposed Iraqi human rights and democracy. No one else shared thier views. RobS 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually it's a steaming pile of, er, lies. --Murray 21:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Rob, get your head out of the sand. Every American is in favor of Democracy, for the love of God, get that into your head. Liberals, like me, were opposed to the war because it was poorly planned, poorly committed, we knew it'd be poorly executed, and it was inconsistent with previous stated U.S. policy (see the Powell Doctrine which I'm sure isn't up yet, since it's a liberal topic). We knew it would end in a quagmire. Liberals would line up 'cross the board in support of spreading democracy if we thought it would be easy in and easy out, but we weren't deluded into thinking it was. You were.
Ooooh, and guess who was right?-AmesG 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
RobS, it may be that liberals are not in favorite of human rights, lets not forget that the only conservative who had some courage and decency to take a stand against torture was McCain. So do you want the article on conservatives to say: As the discussion around Abu Graib and torture legislation has shown, conservatives do not believe in human rights, and would like to torture at will, and for no good reason, and all the reason that we had to invade Iraq to bring democracy and freedom, was obviously a sham just because a few vocal and irresponsible conservatives don't get that these practices are plain wrong, who hardly represent the mainstream conservative position. You should allow both sides to have their share of lunatics on the fringe, but we shouldn't make it part of how we define the mainstream. Order 23 March. 11:50 (AEST)
Let's not forget the "Torture Memo," [[user:Order]. I submit one final question to you, comrade: based on what we now know about how the war should have been executed, should have been planned, what the troops should have gotten before the war in the way of training and armor...
...who really supports the troops? Hint: not the Bush administration.-AmesG 20:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG: So your psychic powers told you it was poorly planned, etc., and that's why you went about disrupting public support for the War. The Powell Doctrine is a restatement of Clausewitz, adding "overwhelming use of force", etc. But (a) the Powell Doctrine only referes to conventional type Cold War conflicts with large standing miltiary establishment, fixed targets, etc, and does not address the problems of modern 21st century warfare. Further, the business about "exit strategy" was always controversial, because it only applies to what Clausewitz refers to as "A War of Limited Aims".[3]
Order: That discussion is already in the mainspace at Abu Ghraib. Arundati Roy, et al, are self identified comrades with murderers and terrorists. RobS 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't need psychic powers to tell me that a war without an exit plan is poorly planned. And it's not me that misinterpreted the type of conflict awaiting in Iraq: the government has consistently treated it like a Cold War style conflict, so conceding your point, your own argument bites you. Seriously, that this war was bungled from the start was never an issue. No exit plan = poorly planned. And Powell thought it applied; that's why he quit.-AmesG 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
We're still waiting for the exit plan from the Korean War, considering it was the policy of contianing Soviet expansion that got us in there, and now with the Soviet Union defunct, we're still waiting on the exit plan.
Point is, only in a war of limited aims can there be an exit plan. And not all wars are wars of limited aims. Idealy, in a perfect world that would be so. But we all know the truth of that matter...
As to it being a Cold War style conflict, as the saying goes, we always plan to fight the last war. Cold War military and 20th century military establishments are not designed to fight modern warfare against terrorist cells. It's a learning curve, and the US is deveolping the special skills needed. Us oldtimers can only give our experience, but if the US is to survive, the present generation must revamp the idea of what soldiering and war is to deal with this enemy which is intent upon destroying Western Civilization, and probably will never quit.
The War on Terror, or the War in Iraq, is not just another "frisch, fröhliche krieg", as the Germans say, a brisk, jolly little war; and comparing it to the Cold War is an understatement, too. Neither is it like both World Wars which were total war between nation-states. But I'm afraid you have (and probably the sources you get much of your information from) drawn too heavily upon these past experiences to base your analogies on. It is an entirley different kind of war that needs entireley different approaches and solutions. Complaining about the things you've stated solves nothing. The John Kerry Administration or Al Gore Administration would be facing these identical problems, so your reservations literally have no merit whatsoever other than ill-founded partisanship.
So then, what do we do? Hide our head in the sand and pray to Allah that the problem will go away? RobS 00:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Your knowledge of German attitude towards war is a bit dated. This was the pre WW-1 mood, about one century ago. There was no "frisch, fröhliche krieg" sentiment at the beginning of WW-2. If anyone was looking for a jolly little war in the last century, then it was mood by the neo-cons (who by my account aren't conservative) prior to the Iraq war.
There were people with precongnition. Even part of the bush administration was able to have an appropiate plan for the war and its aftermath in iraq. Unfortunately this plan was made by the state department. The Pentagon decided to disregard the recommendations in that plan, ignore the warnings in that plan. They kind of followed a recipe for disaster that was painted in the plan by the state department. There were sufficient people who warned, but the white house and the pentagon decided to ignore these. User:Order 23 March, 15:30 (AEST)
A frisch, fröhliche krieg would describe something like Granada or the Falklands, yes there may be real fighting and valor, but ultimately it's more like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. So what are you saying? Saddam randomly putting a person in a wood chipper every few months to keep the population terrorized is preferable to 650,000 casualties in building a democratic Iraq? Case closed. Nobody ever said democracy and freedom come cheaply. Liberals abandoned thier long held advocacy of democracy and human rights when they opposed the war. RobS 01:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


P.S. And all you have are lame partisan arguments that do nothing, absolutely nothing, to further the cause of democracy and human rights.
So, the well executed post war planning by the state department was partisan? Just accusing liberals all the time doesn't solve the problems. This administration messed up. And not because it is conservative or liberal, but because they have contempt for experts. They think that these expert also just have an opinion even valid as their own opinion. Interlectually dishonesty is the problem, and I can't see any conservative value in that. It is you who casts everything under sun in partisan terms. Order 23 March, 16:30 (AEST)


Not wanting to endorse a poorly planned war that could never accomplish its goals - as much as I hope it still will, as do all Democrats - is not the same as not signing off on the goals. I think it'd be super if man could land on Mars, but I'd rather not try to get there in a Cessna 152. My recalcitrance at using such limited means, though, doesn't mean that I dont' think we should at some point land on Mars... -AmesG 01:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
So is the argument (again) that because didn't have operational capability in WMD that we should have waited until he did, then we could have sent the troops in harms way with the assurance that would suffer a chemical weapons attack. And then that would justify everything. But you and I both know, in that scenario, all we would hear would be "Wjhy didn't we get rid of Saddam before he had WMD? Why did they wait too long? They knew and they did nothing!" Youn know the script lines, and play the part well, but let's be honest with the folks viewing at home, all this refernce to Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc. is bogus, and has nothing to do with the real matter. RobS 01:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You just come with your talking-points. The talking points business an insult for any conservative who is able to think for himself. Anyway, tell us what the matter is? What does your talking point list say about this topic? Order 23 March, 16:40 (AEST)

It's really hard to argue that the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I'm not even going to try. But what I can argue is that liberal thought maybe... juuuuuuuustt maybe... the administration shouldn't have gone in there with such a rosy picture of what was going to happen. George H.W. Bush knew what the consequences of a Baghdad invasion would look like. He knew it in 1991. W didn't have to listen to liberals to figure out what would happen, he just had to call his dad.

And let's not forget... Saddam was contained. His ability to mount any kind of offensive war was extremely limited, he was under constant surveilance. Time was our ally here. We lost that ally like we did the rest of them. Myk 01:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It was easy to predict the failure of the Iraq war based on the worldview of those who planned it. Neoconservativism has always been scoffed at by all serious foreign policy experts because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of power and the role of nationalism in political behavior. It is why all of Bush's policies have been failures--because he tries to implement conservative policies and conservative policies are fundamentally flawed because they are premised on false assumptions about authority and erroneous predictions regarding human behavior and how it responds to authority.--Jack 00:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberals in Europe

I saw that you changed that liberal in europe from "center to right wing" to "so-called center and right wing". Tell us what is "so-called" center and right wing about the liberal parties in Germany, austria or the VVD in the Netherlands? They are centre or right wig.Order

This refers to the Left/Right Spectrum Theory, as we have discovered in the most recent example--Iraq, is totally devoid in understanding politcal groups, coalitions, parties, groupings, ideologies, or loyalties. RobS 21:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
So why do you use it? And what does that have to do about the fact that Liberals outside of the US, do not fit this defiition of liberal. Do you actually know what liberal parties in Europe stand for, say VVD in the Netherlands, FDP in Germany, Venstre Parti in Denmark, or FPÖ in Austria? Where they position themselves in the political spectum? Or do you know, to mention a non european example, what attitude the leader of the Australian Liberal Party has towards the war in Iraq? I guess you just don't know it, and therefore try to change the subject. Order 23 March 15:40 (AEST)

Gun Control

Liberals don't want gun control. I would like to see sources that state otherwise. Liberals are all about individual freedoms and gun control takes away from their freedoms. Just because Democrats want gun control doesn't mean that liberals want gun control. This is the definition given by dictionary.com [4]

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. --Liberalmedia 23:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
In US, a liberal who doesn't want gun control is a libertarian. Noodles 00:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Libmed is right Flippin 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Cites

The citation to http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php would, IMO, be a conservative economic goal. That is, limited governmental interaction within the markets.--Crackertalk 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Hey, Cracker. I understand why you think that it is a conservative economic goal. The reason why you think this is that Republicans are wanting these same economic goals. However, the mistake you are making is that any goal on the Republican party's platform must be a conservative view. However, this is not true. Economic liberalism is wanting essentially no governmental interference on economic policy. Also, if you check out wikipedia (Sorry) they will state how economic liberalism is the Republican's ideology on economic matters.[5] Any view that is against government controls is a liberal view. Any view that gives more power to the government is a conservative view.
Yes. We're in agreement...I think the original citer saw "economic-liberalism" and assumed it MUST be a politcally liberal idea!
The current crop of "conservatives" seem to forget they're for SMALL government and less economic regulation. --Crackertalk 23:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Protection

The protection log says to see the talk page. As there is nothing on the talk page, I thought I'd put something here. So... protected again, huh? Myk 03:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, it said for David (Hoji) to see it.  ;-) I meant to only protect against unregistered users, and that I fixed. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 03:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought only registered users could edit at all. Myk 04:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Nope, not according to the protection choices. I can protect against everyone but Sysop's, unregistered users only, or make it normal, which, I am assuming, since it gives me the other choices, means unregistered users. Who knows, lol..not like there is some instruction book. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Unregistered users are blocked across the entire wiki. That's why you don't see lots of edits by IP addresses. If you can stomach it, check out a popular wikipedia page and look at the history. Lots of edits are from unreigtered users. Myk 04:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Man, it's almost two in the morning here, and I am in real need of a Stoli and completing my daily quota of email/spam/crap, lol. (ADDED) I only know those are the choices I am given. I've never tried to edit as a unregistered user.--~ --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)TerryK Talk2Me! 04:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Broadest possible application

The article currently lists "Broadest possible application of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution", and someone added "(except the 2nd amendment)". What does this mean? I've never noticed that liberals want applications of the Geneva Conventions and the American Constitution that are any broader than anyone else. Maybe they are more willing to alter constitutional principles to promote their agendas, but they don't broadly apply the constitution. RSchlafly 13:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, I agree, however Democrats in both the House and Senate actually have campaigned to try terrorists, or non-uniformed enemy combatants in civilian courts, rather than the Geneva Convention mandated Military Tribunals. That, I guess, users might class as their "proof" of wanting broader applications, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

How can we forget the fact that...

... liberals eat aborted fetuses while smoking pot and having homosexual sex while burning flags and bibles? Oh, and worst of all, they believe in... ... ... scientific process and objectivity. Wicked, evil things, they are. Spreading their bias everywhere like a plague. --BillOReillyFan 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

actully liberals believe in subjectivity, as in subjectiveness of morality, not objectivity.

Isolationist vs Interventionalists

The repeated edits and reverts of the "support of/opposition to an American foreign policy that supports ..." are annoying. Mostly because this is more a difference of opinion between isolationists and interventionists, and not between liberals and conservatives. You can find isolationists and interventionists on both sides of the political divide. User:Order 24 March 13:30