Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-09-01T02:46:57Z

Ardwingore: There is no article called Conservative hipocricy

== This should be merged ==

Someone should move the actors "hypocrisy" to after the politicians. While the use of guns in a movie does illustrate their hypocrisy by the implication that they condone such behavior by playing a part. There are better "real life" arguments to be made, and a person reading this may see this comparison as follish and not read on.

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[Carbon offsetting]] is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost ''always'' used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
::::::I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''"It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"''
*It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'}}
*[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read ''Climate of Hunger''), but he hasn't published any new work in '''two decades.''' Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

::::So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

::::Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

:::::The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the ''exact same talking points'' in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

:::::I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::In carrying forward this ''reductio ad absurdum,'' let's examine this claim,
::::::*''kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune''
::::::Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. [[User:Order]] 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|certain]] actor wind up as POTUS. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone ''"deserves the death penalty"'' for writing a piece that he disagrees with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Am I to take it you've not heard of ''hyperbole''? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" '''(another thing in the same "not in reality category")''', "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please! ==

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Kyoto and Spain ==

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. [[User:Order]]

*Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? [[User:Order]]

Since nobody was able to explain what the 'hypocrisy', nor why it concerns a Liberal, I removed the the corresponding bit. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 18:15

Why is the article blocked? [[User:Order]] 3 august. :30 (AET)
:So you couldn't remove the corresponding bit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I couldn't. It doesn't matter too much, because the quality of most entries isn't that great either. An entry on something that backfired isn't hypocrisy, and if it then done a conservative government, it isn't exactly liberal either, but as I said somewhere else, this entire list is for entertainment only. Sure, a real encyclopedia would include such poor work, but I guess it is for the sysops to decide if they want to be foremost entertaining. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:If it's for entertainment only, why are you and others so desperate to change it? Could it be that you can't stand it when liberal hypocrisy is exposed, and you instead palm it off as mere entertainment? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::I am not desperate to change it. I would however advise to have everybody sign their fun fact on liberal hypocrisy. I think, but call me picky, that it looks incompetent to call an action that backfired on a conservative prime minister, a liberal hypocrisy. I would suggest that each editor sign his fun fact, such that it would be at least obvious that the incompetence doesn't lie with CP in general, but with a particular editor. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:Such as yourself, for instance? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:11, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::For example. I don't want people to think that I read the entry, and didn't notice what it is obviously wrong. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:22 (AET)
:::In your opinion, of course. What you have obviously overlooked is the fact that libs love the Kyoto Treaty, and didn't raise much of a fuss here in this country when that ship was refused entry into harbor by Spain (a Kyoto signatory), to sink in the deep ocean whereby it spilled its entire cargo of oil to foul all the Atlantic coastal beaches on the Iberian Penninsula.
:::I personaly seen libs rant and whine about pollution and how we need to clean up our act, and these same libs don't seem to mind much when they pollute themselves with their cars, their cigarette butts, their chewing gum wrappers, their foul mouths, and I bet you're one of them. Don't come here and start correcting us for what we write when you do it yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:18, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
: No, not in my opinion. It is most peoples opinion that Aznar was conservative politician, and in addition the Prime Minister of Spain, and not some Liberal. And the Kyoto treaty still doesn't have anything to do with oil pollution. And comments on my personal hygiene doesn't make your position stronger. But I guess you did it in the heat of the moment, and wouldn't mind to apologize for this verbal slip. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 14:30
::Personal hygene means you have a problem with showering, clean clothes, and an overall smell about your person, something which I didn't cite and have no need to apologize for. The others I mentioned are personal habits which you may have at least one of...and even then I have no reason to apologize. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: No need to be all defensive, a simple apology would have been sufficient. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 20:55
::Excuse me, Mr Order. You came to this site knowing it was a conservative site, and have every intention of pushing your liberal views on it. It is you who needs to apologize for that, and you will. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: What liberal views? Sorry for pointing out that an action by the Aznar government that backfired on his government isn't a liberal hypocrisy. Pointing this out isn't liberal. And your insistence to stick to this story isn't conservative either. It isn't even advancing the conservative cause, to the contrary. Nor are personal insults. But, since you changed your tone, I will take it as an apology. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 22:25

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. [[User:Order]]
:What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. [[User:Order]]

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. [[User:Order]]

:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like '''politics''', not hypocrisy. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall '''and''' have consumption drop by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. [[User:Order]]

Seems like I can make mistakes too. According to Chart the tax was increased by 7ct (not percent). Sorry for this mistake. It is currently 20ct in Tennessee. So, lets then assume that it was 13ct before the tax increase, and 20 ct after. This means an increase in tax of about 53%, which means that you make a windfall if consumption drops up to 35%. [[User:Order]]

== Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in Mass. ==

I think something should be added to the article about global warmist Ted Kennedy's opposition to putting wind farms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Even though it's one of the best sites for wind generation on the entire east coast, he opposes it because it might affect the view from his mansion. Total liberal hypocrisy. He only supports renewable energy if he doesn't have to see it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:"Ted Kennedy" is not someone who comes to mind when one thinks of Global Warming activists or promoters. He may lean left on environmental issues, but he is definitely not a majro leader in the movement. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Try again. [http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=189&article=1397]--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's a little weak. I don't think NIMBY is really an example of hypocrisy, it's an example of self interest overriding community interest. As I said [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal_hypocrisy#Couple_of_points.2Fcomments before] (which seems to have been largely ignored :/) there are ''many'' examples of liberal hipocrisy, but you need to pick strong ones or you set yourself up for failure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term. ==

I have to take issue with the statement "Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

I took the time to look up "acting" on Merriam-Webster online, and came across the definition "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras". So I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a ''character'' (who is ''not'' real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, that's the only reason I looked at this page. Seems really... Well, it seems like somebody's been grasping at straws. Edit: Same thing for Wahlberg. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:54, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a cop in the movies can go around condemning them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a soldier in the movies can spit on them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that the anti-gun nut who thinks the average law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be owning a gun to defend himself from a criminal, yet the same anti-gun nut thinks it's ok for himself to play that law-abiding gun-owning American in a movie defending himself from a criminal. Sound's like you're upset that this bit of liberal hypocrisy is broadcast for the world to see. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:11, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Deleting other people's comments is not cool.
::: 2. How? Is it also hypocritical for someone who plays a mad scientist bent on destroying the world in a movie to condemn that sort of thing in reality? They're freaking ACTORS! They don't '''have''' to agree with what their characters do, they just have to make them do it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, they are actors in a movie, they play parts in a movies, but just as I refuse to accept medical advice from an actor who plays a doctor on TV, I will never listen to the anti-gun Clooneys or Wahlbergs as they try to take my guns away from me while they play the hero with them on film. Get it through your head. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, and pushing your own liberalness on this website is not cool. You will respect CP. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: I never claimed that you should take medical advice from, let's say, Hugh Laurie, but you seem to be slamming the use of guns to heroic ends if the person portraying that character does not believe that the average citizen should be "packing heat." If they played a character who didn't use guns, would you support their opinion more then? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:27, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::: And I'm fine with your disagreement of my personal beliefs, but you're acting awfully hostile about the whole issue... And I sincerely hope that by CP, you mean conservapedia. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You are the one who's hostile to this subject and this website. If you do not like conservapedia or conservatism or Christianity, then you should leave. This discussion between you and me is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:31, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I have never, on this website, claimed to be hostile to any of these things. I'd appreciate it, sir or madam, if you'd not attempt to misrepresent me. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:33, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But you can misrepresent me as you did above? Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Alright, let me rephrase what I said. In my non-expert [[opinion]] you seem to be acting rather [[hostile]] towards me on [[Liberal hypocrisy|this issue]]. I'm sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*<s>Kazmaru, since you (falsely) claimed on your user page I had blocked you, I have protected your honor and turned your public lie into truth.</s> --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Kazmaru, I apologize! The block log showed no previous block for you! I have removed your block, and restored your pages. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

**No hard feelings, TK. We're all only human. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, Thank God! So long as we don't become [[deceit|(sub)Human]], all is good! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:18, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

''Hoji said''
*I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical'', and quoted
*"scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."
Ok, so Clooney is a [[capitalist]] pig who exploited America's love affair with the Second Amendment for personal profit and then criticizes our God-given freedoms to pursue happiness and own a gun. That's not hypocritical? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*To be fair, Rob, it is no more hypocritical than Michael Moore owning Haliburton stock, and keeping his money off-shore to avoid paying a rich man's taxes that would go to help all those without medical care! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

[[John Travolta]] is a [[heterosexual]] [[male]] [[Scientologist]]. In the [[movie]] Hairspray he plays the [[mother]] of an [[hedonism|hedonistic]] [[teenage]] [[girl]]. Another [[straw]] to grasp at? [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 12:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Couric==
I already mentioned this once elsewhere, but now that the idiocy has premeated to other pages I feel I should mention it again. The Couric quote is ridiculous. First of all, while Couric may be liberal, I don't see how commenting on how gas prices are at historic highs is a liberal comment. Nor do I really see any hypocrisy. As for the "I need a loan," is it possible, just ''possible'' that she ''might'' have been exaggerating? Leaving that quote there just might it seem like CP is full of idiots who can't comprehend that not every statement is meant to be taken literally. It's grasping at straws. If someone says "I exercise all the time", maybe that should be included too, as clearly all humans must sleep, therefore that person clearly exercises less than 100% of the time, making that person [[deceit|deceitful]], and, I suppose, a hypocrite. There are a few good examples on this page (the O'Donnell one, for example), but far too many poor ones. And the Couric one has to be the worst. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:22, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. My first time reading it, it seems obvious it was a joke. Startoman24
::Right. She's just one of the boys, nevermind she gets $15,000,000 to spew marxist garbage. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

I looked at the citation dropped for the premise that Clooney said that Heston deserves Alzheimers... but the real quote says nothing like it! Clooney says that Heston deserves what others "say" about him, not that he deserves a disease, and the link to the quote provides the quote wholly without context. As much as I hate Clooney, isn't it a little dishonest to supply an out-of-context quote, and then provide your own context?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 12:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:Cooney's quote appears to more directed at criticizing NRA support for candadites that oppose gun control, than the issue of the Second Amendment itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
So you agree that the quote doesn't stand for the cited proposition. Shouldn't it be removed, then? Say what you will about Clooney, but he doesn't appear to have rejoiced at Heston's alzheimer's as you claim.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 12:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::It's an actual quote by Clooney in response to hearing Heston had Alzheimer's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Here's a CNN Transcript where Clooney admits joking about Heston's Alzheimers was in poor taste. [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html] Whatever the merits, there is a story here. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:15, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we ought to begin a page on [[Liberal hate speech]]; we got the anti-feminist example of Edwards calling a succesful woman a "she-devil" because of her recognized abilities to compete with men in the marketplace; we got at least three examples of liberal hate speech directed at handicapped persons, Clooney "joking" about Heston's Alzheimers, jokes about Reagan in diddies, and [[Rush Limbaugh]] is multi-handicapped, we have numerous disparaging comments about his deafness, his drug addiction (yes, drug addiction is defined as a handicap by the American's with Disabilities Act) after Limbaugh's back surgery. If somebody wants to start it, I just have to prioritize about 10 trillion more examples. We can throw in what was said about [[Clarence Thomas]], or [[Thomas Sowell]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Since we already have a relatively short [[hate speech]] article, I would suggest adding a section on liberal hate speech with the items you just mentioned, instead of making a new article. When that section gets too large, we can create the new page and provide a summary/link to the new article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Here you go! http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Hate_Speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ooops! Didn't see your post while making the other page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:58, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the links, Karajou, and Rob. Since you provided them so quickly, perhaps they should be in the article, too?

And yeah, this seems to be something more like hate speech than hypocrisy. I don't see his nasty comments about Heston as hypocrisy at all, just major jerkitude!-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 14:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The fact that he admitted it was in poor taste, yet insisted it was still funny and showed no remorse for doing so makes it hypocricy <nowiki>[sic]</nowiki>. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
I looked up hypocrisy, and it means, "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." He nowhere says that what he did was nice, while pretending it wasn't; nor does he say that what he said was funny, but believes it wasn't. He was an a--, and a real jerk, but not a hypocrite. Conflating various bad traits isn't a very appealing trait, yourself.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:04, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::''KURTZ: Was that in poor taste in retrospect? ''
:::''CLOONEY: Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. .... And it was just a funny joke. ''
:::Seems unrepentant to me. He says above it was ''both'' in poor taste and funny. Nowhere does he say he shouldn't have made the joke.

:::'Hypo', in Greek means 'below' or 'underneath' (as in 'hypodermic', beneath the skin), and 'kritikos' means 'making judgements'. So it means below or beneath making judgements. 'Hypocritic' was an actual word Greeks used for stage characters, or 'actors', someone pretending to be someone who they were not. This meaning has survived in its literal sense in English.
::The subtle difference between a hypocrite and your average run-of-the-mill liar is that when the hypocritical behavior is exposed the hypocrite generally has no idea that they have been engaging in behavior that '''is''' hypocritical. That is the whole point to being a hypocrite; being blind to one's own misdeeds, or contradictory behavior. [[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 16:40, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Doesn't seem to me that Clooney did either. He said his joke was in poor taste, but still funny. I think it was neither, but that's not a hypocritical statement, just a jerky one.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:43, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I respect you for your work on the site, which has become apparent to me only in a few days here. But your reply is still nonsensical. Hypocrisy is distinct from a lack of contrition. Is this not obvious to you?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Hypocrisy is pretending to stand for liberalism, reason, civility, the betterment of the human condition, and all things good, and not being willing to admit you made a mistake with a vicious and offensive partisan smear in what you consider to be a 'joke' among your enlightened friends. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
*I really don't believe they teach one how to avoid being that way at NYU, Rob. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is no article called [[Conservative hipocricy]] ==

Why? This is quite a bias of your 'pedia.--[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative

2007-09-01T02:45:39Z

Ardwingore: /* George W. Bush a conservative? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)