Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

John Frusciante

2009-07-28T18:51:35Z

Phaedrus: /* Discography */

[[Image:John Frusciante Frankfurt3.jpg|180px|thumb|right|John Frusciante in Frankfurt]]
'''John Frusciante''' (born March 5, 1970) is an [[United States|American]] [[musician]]. He is the guitarist for the [[alternative rock]] band, [[Red Hot Chili Peppers]].

==Discography==
*Niandra Lades & Usually Just A T-Shirt (1994)
*Smile From The Streets You Hold (1997)
*From The Sounds Inside (2001)
*To Record Only Water For Ten Days (2001)
*Shadows Collide With People (2004)
*The Will To Death (2004)
*Inside of Emptiness (2004)
*Sphere In The Heart Of Silence (2004)
*Curtains (2005)
*The Empyrean (2009)

==External links==
*[http://www.johnfrusciante.com Official website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Frusciante, John}}

[[Category:Musicians]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-28T18:50:17Z

Phaedrus: /* Animal rights */

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

::This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

== Unlock article? ==

Can this article be unlocked? [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. [[User:ConservativeCanuck|ConservativeCanuck]] 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

:Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?==

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. <ref>http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/obama-receives-foreign-student-tuition-aid-smoking-gun-finally-found/#more-6734</ref> <ref>http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1995743.aspx</ref>

==The Muslim Section==
The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth."
Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

::I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

== Article in disrepair ==

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing ''Dreams From My Father''. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html), and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>
:Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

:(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:*''Fancy French mustard?'' Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

: The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--[[User:Redsox70707|Redsox70707]] 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

== Table of Contents ==

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
:: The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.[[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

== Pakistani pronounciation ==

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

:Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

::Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.

:::Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
Can one own an idea? Where do you put it, in your pocket? - Phaedrus

==Updating a link==
Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

http://middleeast.about.com/b/2009/04/06/obama-in-turkey-at-the-gates-of-islam.htm
http://www.freep.com/article/20090604/NEWS05/906040435/
http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=6235.4664.0.0

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ABush20082012&year=&month=-1 blocked] infinitely for pointing it out. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. [[User:InnocenceIntent|InnocenceIntent]] 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:
<blockquote>
22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)
</blockquote>
Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:
<blockquote>
# 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
# 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)
</blockquote>
And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Many Broken Links==
OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:
:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
:l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.
I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

(150) is broken, replace with http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753197/posts for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28189

(184) is broken, replace with http://vodpod.com/watch/956078-obama-we-already-have-economic-disaster-from-john-mccains-president-george-w-bush

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_wrote_dreams_from_my_fathe_1.html

(203) is broken, replace with http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with http://www.politicalbase.com/forums/topic/obama-rebukes-mccain-camp-on-terrorism-criticism/3781/

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

[[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:::: The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:::: I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Can someone insert this?==
My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the [[Justice Department]] into allegations of voter fraud committed by [[ACORN]], Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=297446] --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --[[User:JDelaney|JDelaney]] 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

==liberal vandalism: mulatto==
While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
:Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

::It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

==Animal rights==

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" [[PETA]] quotes Obama as saying,
:"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php]
Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,
:"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with [[Adolf Hitler]] announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#1933:_Tierschutzgesetz]
[[Himmler]] likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals [http://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-11.pdf p.2]

Perhpas this area needs more study. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

::Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)
"Hitler drank water, Hitler was evil, you drink water, therefore....." - Phaedrus

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-28T18:48:01Z

Phaedrus: /* Pakistani pronounciation */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-07-28T18:46:56Z

Phaedrus: /* Pakistani pronounciation */

Talk:Liberal

2009-07-28T15:25:53Z

Phaedrus: /* Clean up article */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

It's locked as kind of a "cultural immune system". That is, if you don't say it on their terms, you can't say it at all. Very, very effective in regulating words and, thereby, ideas. .--[[User:Phaedrus|Phaedrus]]

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

Talk:Liberal

2009-07-28T15:16:59Z

Phaedrus: /* This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin */

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that I am a conservative, unChristian, unAmerican, and mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of logic and compassion.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST) Fixed that for you, mate. .--[[User:Phaedrus]]

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009