Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

David Cameron

2011-02-15T17:11:38Z

TrevS: /* Personal */

{{Prime Minister
|image=674uyyhju.jpg
|seq=75
|term_start=May 11 2010
|term_end=present
|previous=Gordon Brown
|party=Conservative Party
|birth_date=October 6, 1966
|birth_place=London
|spouse=Samantha Sheffield
|religion=[[Church of England]]
}}
'''David Cameron''', born 9 October 1966, is the current Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] and leader of the British [[Conservative Party]]. Following the May 2010 election, the Conservatives won the most seats but were short of a majority, resulting in a hung parliament. Labour Leader [[Gordon Brown]] resigned, and Cameron was appointed Prime Minister, leading a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.

==Personal==

Cameron was born in [[London]], but spent his early years near Wantage in [[Oxfordshire]], [[England]], though his family's roots lie in [[Inverness]], [[Scotland]], and "Cameron" is well known in Britain as a Scottish name.

Cameron was educated at [[Eton College | Eton]], Britain's most prestigious public school (a "public school" in the UK referring to a privately run institution, as opposed to a "state school"), and at [[Brasenose College]], [[Oxford University|Oxford]], Britain's most ancient and prestigious university.

Cameron is self-described as "upper middle class", though his bloodline is noble, and he is a direct descendent of William IV, and thus a distant cousin of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. His family has historically been involved in finance and banking, with his great great grandfather being head of HSBC in the late 19th century, and worked alongside the Rothschilds to finance the Russo-Japanese war.

Cameron's leadership and indeed his own party are supported by businesses, as opposed to the liberal, socialist aligned Labour Party, led by [[Ed Miliband]]; which is funded and largely controlled by the [[trade union]]s. Many intervening leaders have been middle-class ([[Edward Heath]], [[Margaret Thatcher]]) or even working-class ([[John Major]]).

Cameron's reluctance to discuss his past, citing the right to a private life before politics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm</ref> has led to class-based attacks on his education and ancestry from a small proportion of left-wing media sources and opposition members of Parliament.

He has been married to Samantha since 1996. She is of direct noble bloodline, the daughter of 8th Baronet Sheffield, and a descendent of Charles II. They have two sons and a daughter. Their eldest son, Ivan Cameron, died on February 25, 2009.<ref>[[BBC News]] - [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7909562.stm Cameron's 'beautiful boy' dies]</ref>

==Political career==

Cameron's pre-parliamentary career included spells as a staffer for controversial Conservative politician [[Norman Lamont]] and as a PR executive.

Cameron was elected to Parliament as MP for Witney in Oxfordshire at the 2001 general election.

Cameron was elected leader of the [[Conservative Party]] in December 2005, succeeding [[Michael Howard]].

In late June 2007, at the end of then-Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]'s final Prime Minister's Questions session in the [[House of Commons]], David Cameron led his opposition party in giving the outgoing leader a standing ovation.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555758/Tony-Blair-steps-down-to-a-standing-ovation.html Tony Blair steps down to standing ovation] - Daily Telegraph, June 27, 2007</ref>

==Policies==

Cameron has attempted to move the Conservative party towards what is perceived by some to be the centre ground of British politics. While the party under his leadership has expressed support for some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as the importance of the [[family]], Cameron has also expressed a passionate concern about [[global warming]]. He has suggested a move towards [[privatization]] within the strongly-socialist [[National Health Service]], in an attempt to combat the economic failures resulting from the flawed socialist ideas upon which the organisation is based. Designed and originated by the leftist [[Labour Party]], the organisation is notorious for its bureaucracy and the failure of its left-wing values in an economic sense.

Some traditional Conservatives, particularly those on the [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] wing of the party, have criticized Cameron for moving the party too far to the left. They point to surveys showing that many voters feel they no longer know what the Conservative Party stands for.<ref>http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101018_1.pdf</ref> However, he has stated that he is "certainly a big [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite."<ref name="new identity">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4446864.stm "Cameron: Tories need new identity"], ''BBC News Online'', 17 November 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> He has also described himself as a "liberal Conservative" (though "liberal" in British English does not have the same meaning as in the United States, and instead has the meaning of "centrist" or "moderate").<ref name="Rawnsley">Andrew Rawnsley, [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1669957,00.html "'I'm not a deeply ideological person. I'm a practical one'"], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 18 December 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> Some have gone so far as to claim that true conservatism is today represented in Britain not by the Conservative Party but by the [[UK Independence Party]]. On the other hand, the approval ratings of Cameron and his party continue to compare very favourably with those of the Labour Party and its leadership, which is undoubtedly unpopular.

Cameron has said: "My aim is to promote social justice, making sure that everyone has access to good schools, good healthcare and decent housing, take a lead in ending global poverty and do all we can to meet the great environmental threats of our age."<ref>http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.cameron.about.page</ref> Some conservative politicians and commentators, notably [[Norman Tebbit]], have criticised him for prioritising issues of the environment and social justice over more traditionally Conservative policy areas, such as tax, immigration and foreign relations. Tebbit said: "Is he the party's [[Chairman Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]], intent on purging even the memory and name of [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcherism]] before building a new modern compassionate green globally aware party somewhere on the left side of the middle?"<ref name="g1">[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1698576,00.html Tories must retake centre ground says Cameron], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 31 January 2006</ref> However, Cameron has responded extensively to such criticisms by pointing out that the economic and social problems faced by modern-day Britain are radically different from those faced in the past; he has argued that the Conservative Party needs to re-take the [[centrist|centre ground]] of politics from the [[Labour Party]].<ref name="bbc1">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661024.stm Cameron denies 'betraying' Tories], BBC News, 30 January 2006</ref> He argued: "The change is not a betrayal. It is a recognition that the challenges faced by Britain are not the challenges of the 1970s. Social justice and economic efficiency are the common ground of British politics. We have to find the means of succeeding where the government has failed."<ref name="g1"/>

On August 16, 2008, Cameron followed President [[George Bush]] in criticising [[Russia]]'s invasion of [[Georgia]] during a visit to the war-torn region.<ref>[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jl825geip9c65_-FTHTC_3wzMy0Q Cameron in Georgia slams 'invading' Russia]</ref>

==References==

<References/>

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Conservative Party]]

==External Links==
[http://www.mydavidcameron.com/ Cameron Election Campaign 2010]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Cameron, David}}

[[Category: United Kingdom]]
[[Category: United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]
[[category:British Politics]]

Ed Miliband

2011-02-15T17:07:23Z

TrevS: Created page with "'''Ed Miliband''' (Edward Samuel Miliband, born 24 December 1969) is a British politician, leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition since 2010."

'''Ed Miliband''' (Edward Samuel Miliband, born 24 December 1969) is a British politician, leader of the [[Labour Party]] and [[Leader of the Opposition]] since 2010.

David Miliband

2011-02-15T17:03:57Z

TrevS:

'''David Miliband''' (b. 1965) was the [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Foreign Secretary|Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]] until May 2010 and [[Labour Party]] MP for [[South Shields]].

Miliband is the child of Holocaust survivors—and at least 80 members of his Jewish extended family perished. He is the son of [[Marxist]] ideologue Ralph Miliband (1924-1994), and is a staunch atheist<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2475236/Profile-of-Foreign-Secretary-David-Miliband.html Telegraph profile of David Miliband]</ref>. An intellectual, he graduated from Oxford and MIT.

Miliband emphasized in late 2009 that Britain will continue its presence in [[Afghanistan]] and that the United States and Britain share common goals there. He agrees with the McChrystal report that the situation is serious, and that NATO needs a combined security/economic/political approach. He agrees that on the need to put the Afghans in the lead of security and of political reconciliation, noting it is essential that the Afghan government governs in a clean and not corrupt way because that is vital to retain the confidence of the Afghans as well as the inter-national community.

He wants the crisis regarding Iran and its nuclear program to be resolved with diplomacy. As for Palestine, Miliband promotes a 23-state solution (22 states of the Arab League, including Palestine, and Israel) in which a Palestinian state is developed according to 1967 borders plus or minus land swaps, with a fair settlement of refugees. In his view Jerusalem is the capital of both countries. In return, Israel gets the recognition that it craves and it deserves from the Arab world.<ref> Lally Weymouth, "Iran Has a Very Clear Choice." ''Newsweek'' Oct 5, 2009</ref>

Miliband is strongly supportive of the [[European Union]] as a global economic and military power, eventually incorporating [[Russia]], the [[Middle East]] and [[North Africa]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7095657.stm ''EU 'should expand beyond Europe'''] - BBC News, November 15, 2007</ref>

Miliband's younger brother [[Ed Miliband]] also served in Gordon Brown's cabinet, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, making them the brothers to serve together in the British cabinet since World War II. After the defeat of the Labour government in the 2010 General Election, [[Gordon Brown]] resigned as leader of the Labour Party, and both David and Ed Miliband stood in the subsequent leadership election. Ed Miliband was the narrow winner; David Miliband subsequently announced his intention of withdrawing from front line politics for a spell.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-David_Miliband.html Michael Goldfarb, "David Miliband" ''Moment'' (Nov/Dec 2009)] profile

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

David Miliband

2011-02-15T17:03:32Z

TrevS: Stood in Labour l'ship election but defeated by brother Ed Miliband

'''David Miliband''' (b. 1965) was the [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Foreign Secretary|Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]] until May 2010 and [[Labour Party]] MP for [[South Shields]].

Miliband is the child of Holocaust survivors—and at least 80 members of his Jewish extended family perished. He is the son of [[Marxist]] ideologue Ralph Miliband (1924-1994), and is a staunch atheist<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2475236/Profile-of-Foreign-Secretary-David-Miliband.html Telegraph profile of David Miliband]</ref>. An intellectual, he graduated from Oxford and MIT.

Miliband emphasized in late 2009 that Britain will continue its presence in [[Afghanistan]] and that the United States and Britain share common goals there. He agrees with the McChrystal report that the situation is serious, and that NATO needs a combined security/economic/political approach. He agrees that on the need to put the Afghans in the lead of security and of political reconciliation, noting it is essential that the Afghan government governs in a clean and not corrupt way because that is vital to retain the confidence of the Afghans as well as the inter-national community.

He wants the crisis regarding Iran and its nuclear program to be resolved with diplomacy. As for Palestine, Miliband promotes a 23-state solution (22 states of the Arab League, including Palestine, and Israel) in which a Palestinian state is developed according to 1967 borders plus or minus land swaps, with a fair settlement of refugees. In his view Jerusalem is the capital of both countries. In return, Israel gets the recognition that it craves and it deserves from the Arab world.<ref> Lally Weymouth, "Iran Has a Very Clear Choice." ''Newsweek'' Oct 5, 2009</ref>

Miliband is strongly supportive of the [[European Union]] as a global economic and military power, eventually incorporating [[Russia]], the [[Middle East]] and [[North Africa]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7095657.stm ''EU 'should expand beyond Europe'''] - BBC News, November 15, 2007</ref>

Miliband's younger brother [[Ed Miliband]] also served in Gordon Brown's cabinet, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, making them the brothers to serve together in the British cabinet since World War II. After the defeat of the Labour government in the 2010 General Election, [[Gordon Brown]] resigned as leader of the Labour Party, and both David and Ed Miliband stood in the subsequent leadership eloection. Ed Miliband was the narrow winner; David Miliband subsequently announced his intention of withdrawing from front line politics for a spell.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-David_Miliband.html Michael Goldfarb, "David Miliband" ''Moment'' (Nov/Dec 2009)] profile

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

David Miliband

2011-02-15T17:00:37Z

TrevS:

'''David Miliband''' (b. 1965) was the [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Foreign Secretary|Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs]] until May 2010 and [[Labour Party]] MP for [[South Shields]].

Miliband is the child of Holocaust survivors—and at least 80 members of his Jewish extended family perished. He is the son of [[Marxist]] ideologue Ralph Miliband (1924-1994), and is a staunch atheist<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2475236/Profile-of-Foreign-Secretary-David-Miliband.html Telegraph profile of David Miliband]</ref>. An intellectual, he graduated from Oxford and MIT.

Miliband emphasized in late 2009 that Britain will continue its presence in [[Afghanistan]] and that the United States and Britain share common goals there. He agrees with the McChrystal report that the situation is serious, and that NATO needs a combined security/economic/political approach. He agrees that on the need to put the Afghans in the lead of security and of political reconciliation, noting it is essential that the Afghan government governs in a clean and not corrupt way because that is vital to retain the confidence of the Afghans as well as the inter-national community.

He wants the crisis regarding Iran and its nuclear program to be resolved with diplomacy. As for Palestine, Miliband promotes a 23-state solution (22 states of the Arab League, including Palestine, and Israel) in which a Palestinian state is developed according to 1967 borders plus or minus land swaps, with a fair settlement of refugees. In his view Jerusalem is the capital of both countries. In return, Israel gets the recognition that it craves and it deserves from the Arab world.<ref> Lally Weymouth, "Iran Has a Very Clear Choice." ''Newsweek'' Oct 5, 2009</ref>

Miliband is strongly supportive of the [[European Union]] as a global economic and military power, eventually incorporating [[Russia]], the [[Middle East]] and [[North Africa]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7095657.stm ''EU 'should expand beyond Europe'''] - BBC News, November 15, 2007</ref>

Miliband's younger brother Ed Miliband also served in Gordon Brown's cabinet, as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, making them the brothers to serve together in the British cabinet since World War II. Both the Miliband brothers contend the election for the leadership of the Labour Party

Following [[Tony Blair]]'s resignation in 2008, Miliband was touted as a potential challenger to Gordon Brown for the leadership of the Labour Party. At the time, no challenge arose; however speculation surrounding the party leadership continued to grow.
==Further reading==
* [http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-David_Miliband.html Michael Goldfarb, "David Miliband" ''Moment'' (Nov/Dec 2009)] profile

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

David Cameron

2011-02-15T16:59:36Z

TrevS: /* Personal */ No longer Brown

{{Prime Minister
|image=674uyyhju.jpg
|seq=75
|term_start=May 11 2010
|term_end=present
|previous=Gordon Brown
|party=Conservative Party
|birth_date=October 6, 1966
|birth_place=London
|spouse=Samantha Sheffield
|religion=[[Church of England]]
}}
'''David Cameron''', born 9 October 1966, is the current Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] and leader of the British [[Conservative Party]]. Following the May 2010 election, the Conservatives won the most seats but were short of a majority, resulting in a hung parliament. Labour Leader [[Gordon Brown]] resigned, and Cameron was appointed Prime Minister, leading a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.

==Personal==

Cameron was born in [[London]], but spent his early years near Wantage in [[Oxfordshire]], [[England]], though his family's roots lie in [[Inverness]], [[Scotland]], and "Cameron" is well known in Britain as a Scottish name.

Cameron was educated at [[Eton College | Eton]], Britain's most prestigious public school (a "public school" in the UK referring to a privately run institution, as opposed to a "state school"), and at [[Brasenose College]], [[Oxford University|Oxford]], Britain's most ancient and prestigious university.

Cameron is self-described as "upper middle class", though his bloodline is noble, and he is a direct descendent of William IV, and thus a distant cousin of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. His family has historically been involved in finance and banking, with his great great grandfather being head of HSBC in the late 19th century, and worked alongside the Rothschilds to finance the Russo-Japanese war.

Cameron's leadership and indeed his own party are supported by businesses, as opposed to the liberal, socialist aligned Labour Party, led by the fellow Scotsman [[Ed Miliband]]; who are funded and largely controlled by the [[trade union]]s. Many intervening leaders have been middle-class ([[Edward Heath]], [[Margaret Thatcher]]) or even working-class ([[John Major]]).

Cameron's reluctance to discuss his past, citing the right to a private life before politics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm</ref> has led to class-based attacks on his education and ancestry from a small proportion of media sources and opposition members of Parliament.

He has been married to Samantha since 1996. She is of direct noble bloodline, the daughter of 8th Baronet Sheffield, and a descendent of Charles II. They have two sons and a daughter. Their eldest son, Ivan Cameron, died on February 25, 2009.<ref>[[BBC News]] - [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7909562.stm Cameron's 'beautiful boy' dies]</ref>

==Political career==

Cameron's pre-parliamentary career included spells as a staffer for controversial Conservative politician [[Norman Lamont]] and as a PR executive.

Cameron was elected to Parliament as MP for Witney in Oxfordshire at the 2001 general election.

Cameron was elected leader of the [[Conservative Party]] in December 2005, succeeding [[Michael Howard]].

In late June 2007, at the end of then-Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]'s final Prime Minister's Questions session in the [[House of Commons]], David Cameron led his opposition party in giving the outgoing leader a standing ovation.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555758/Tony-Blair-steps-down-to-a-standing-ovation.html Tony Blair steps down to standing ovation] - Daily Telegraph, June 27, 2007</ref>

==Policies==

Cameron has attempted to move the Conservative party towards what is perceived by some to be the centre ground of British politics. While the party under his leadership has expressed support for some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as the importance of the [[family]], Cameron has also expressed a passionate concern about [[global warming]]. He has suggested a move towards [[privatization]] within the strongly-socialist [[National Health Service]], in an attempt to combat the economic failures resulting from the flawed socialist ideas upon which the organisation is based. Designed and originated by the leftist [[Labour Party]], the organisation is notorious for its bureaucracy and the failure of its left-wing values in an economic sense.

Some traditional Conservatives, particularly those on the [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] wing of the party, have criticized Cameron for moving the party too far to the left. They point to surveys showing that many voters feel they no longer know what the Conservative Party stands for.<ref>http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101018_1.pdf</ref> However, he has stated that he is "certainly a big [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcher]] fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite."<ref name="new identity">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4446864.stm "Cameron: Tories need new identity"], ''BBC News Online'', 17 November 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> He has also described himself as a "liberal Conservative" (though "liberal" in British English does not have the same meaning as in the United States, and instead has the meaning of "centrist" or "moderate").<ref name="Rawnsley">Andrew Rawnsley, [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1669957,00.html "'I'm not a deeply ideological person. I'm a practical one'"], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 18 December 2005, accessed 6 November 2006</ref> Some have gone so far as to claim that true conservatism is today represented in Britain not by the Conservative Party but by the [[UK Independence Party]]. On the other hand, the approval ratings of Cameron and his party continue to compare very favourably with those of the Labour Party and its leadership, which is undoubtedly unpopular.

Cameron has said: "My aim is to promote social justice, making sure that everyone has access to good schools, good healthcare and decent housing, take a lead in ending global poverty and do all we can to meet the great environmental threats of our age."<ref>http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.cameron.about.page</ref> Some conservative politicians and commentators, notably [[Norman Tebbit]], have criticised him for prioritising issues of the environment and social justice over more traditionally Conservative policy areas, such as tax, immigration and foreign relations. Tebbit said: "Is he the party's [[Chairman Mao]] or [[Pol Pot]], intent on purging even the memory and name of [[Margaret Thatcher|Thatcherism]] before building a new modern compassionate green globally aware party somewhere on the left side of the middle?"<ref name="g1">[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,1698576,00.html Tories must retake centre ground says Cameron], ''Guardian Unlimited'', 31 January 2006</ref> However, Cameron has responded extensively to such criticisms by pointing out that the economic and social problems faced by modern-day Britain are radically different from those faced in the past; he has argued that the Conservative Party needs to re-take the [[centrist|centre ground]] of politics from the [[Labour Party]].<ref name="bbc1">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661024.stm Cameron denies 'betraying' Tories], BBC News, 30 January 2006</ref> He argued: "The change is not a betrayal. It is a recognition that the challenges faced by Britain are not the challenges of the 1970s. Social justice and economic efficiency are the common ground of British politics. We have to find the means of succeeding where the government has failed."<ref name="g1"/>

On August 16, 2008, Cameron followed President [[George Bush]] in criticising [[Russia]]'s invasion of [[Georgia]] during a visit to the war-torn region.<ref>[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jl825geip9c65_-FTHTC_3wzMy0Q Cameron in Georgia slams 'invading' Russia]</ref>

==References==

<References/>

==See also==

* [[British politics]]
* [[Conservative Party]]

==External Links==
[http://www.mydavidcameron.com/ Cameron Election Campaign 2010]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Cameron, David}}

[[Category: United Kingdom]]
[[Category: United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]
[[category:British Politics]]

Hollywood values

2011-02-15T16:55:35Z

TrevS: /* Preying on Underage Stars */

[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], [[abortion]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death. A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.

There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Pat Boone]], [[Paul Schofield]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and ''Independence Day'' (a movie about [[Independence Day]]) being recent examples.

Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] (Hollywood's profits depend on the [[advertising]] and sale of [[materialism|material goods]] and other superficial "solutions" to problems.)
* [[accountability]]
* the U.S. military<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]</ref>
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency

In addition, Hollywood portrays these values as rebellious and [[counterculture|countercultural]]. They portray religious and spiritual institutions as greedy, self-serving, sexually perverted, prejudiced, ignorant, and unscientific. When comparing the satisfaction brought about by faith, spirituality, family, and friendship, which may happen to include donations to a church or other organization, it is clear that the profits of Hollywood and the industries which rely upon Hollywood for profit are the true establishment - thus making traditional values truly rebellious and countercultural, and Hollywood values a lie.

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.<ref>http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm</ref> A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 </ref>
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref>
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as "Johnny Cakes", shot himself in the head. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008</ref>
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]</ref>
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm</ref>
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his drug-addicted third wife Brynn Hartman
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Russell Tyrone Jones]] (a.k,a. "Old Dirty Bastard"), 35, musician, died of drug overdose two days before his 36th birthday
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. <ref>[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]</ref>
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose." "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive".
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]</ref> Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications".
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Freddie Prinze]], 22, actor from Chico and the Man committed suicide by gunshot to the head.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]</ref>
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Dorothy Stratten]], 20, murdered by spouse after engaging in extramarital affair
*[[David Strickland]], 29, cast member of NBC's Suddenly Susan hung himself in a Las Vegas hotel.
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref>
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html</ref> Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song "Junkhead"<ref>http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45</ref>
*[[Paul Gray]], 38, bassist of heavy metal band Slipknot, died of an overdose of morphine and fentanyl. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_en_mu/us_slipknot_bassist_autopsy</ref>
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, a.k.a Savanna, a pornographic film star, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Examples include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications.
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
'''Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:'''

* [[Paris Hilton]] was arrested in Las Vegas, 8/27/2010, for possession of a controlled substance, [[Cocaine]]. The hotel heiress was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. The driver was arrested for DUI '''pertaining to drugs, not alcohol'''. Through further interaction between Hilton and authorities, it was discovered she was in possession of a controlled substance. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/28/paris-hilton-arrested-drug-possession/ Paris Hilton arrested in Las Vegas.]</ref>
* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in "Free Willy" and "A League of their Own" and ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.<ref>http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906</ref>
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref>
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer. Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian<ref>http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html</ref> who advocates marijuana use.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=21457</ref>
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Martha Stewart]] was charged with illegal [[insider trading]] in 2003.<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm SEC press release (SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading)]</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008</ref> he was sentenced to death for committing murder.<ref>http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=66850</ref>
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html</ref> Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/</ref>
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's "24" star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009</ref>
*Actor Elmore "Rip" Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]</ref>
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]</ref>
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. <ref>[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]</ref>
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. <ref>[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]</ref>
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. <ref>[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]</ref>
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's "Survivor" series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]</ref>
*Actor Chris Klein, star of the American Pie films, which glorify sex and alcohol abuse, was arrested for drunk driving in June 2010<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/american-pie-chris-klein-busted-for-dui-arrest/</ref>
*Actor Michael Brea played roles in Ugly Betty and Step Up 3D, kills his 55-year old mother with a sword while yelling Bible verses. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ugly-betty-actor-allegedly-kills-mother-foot-sword-screaming-repent/ 'Ugly Betty' Actor Allegedly Kills Mother With 3-Foot Sword While Screaming 'Repent', FOX News, November 24, 2010]</ref>
*TV host and actor Gary Collins was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly leaving a restaurant without paying his $59.35 tab. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/05/tv-host-gary-collins-arrested-skipping-restaurant/ TV Host Gary Collins Arrested for Skipping Out on $59 Restaurant Bill, FOXNews, January 5, 2011]</ref>
*Actress Jaime Pressly was arrested for driving under the influence. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/jaime-pressly-wasted-dui-arrest/ Jaime Pressly Blew Nearly Three Times Legal Limit on Breathalyzer Before Arrest, Fox News, January 11, 2011 ]</ref>
*Korey Rowe, producer of the 9/11 conspiracy film ''Loose Change'' is arrested for selling heroin. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/31/conspiracy-film-producer-arrested-drug-charges/?test=latestnews 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Drug Charges, Fox News, January 31, 2011]</ref>
*Lindsay Lohan is facing felony grand theft charge, she was accused of stealing a $2500 necklace from a Venice boutique. <ref>[ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/05/lindsay-lohan-facing-years-state-prison-jewelry-theft Lindsay Lohan Facing Three Years in State Prison, Fox News, February 5, 2011]</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:

*[[Inside Job]]
:A 2010 film by Democrat donor Charles Ferguson that blames the Great Recession on [[Wall Street]], deregulation, the [[Bush Administration]]. The film whitewashes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role and claims the financial system corrupted politics. Capitalists are the bad guys.
*[[Fair Game]]
:Another Bush bash flick starring communist [[Sean Penn]]. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the war in Iraq and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. Typical un-American Hollywood film ''"The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses."'' <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war/ Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war The Daily Caller, November 11, 2010]</ref>
*[[The Iron Lady]]
: Meryl Streep plays [[Margaret Thatcher]] in this gross mistake of a film. Liberals distort her triumphs and her low career points. Streep portrays Thatcher as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness. The director defended the film as "a fictional film but it will be fair and accurate.” Thatcher's children Mark and Carol are appalled and say “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy." <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html Margaret Thatcher's family are 'appalled' at Meryl Streep film, Telegraphe.co.uk, July 17, 2010]</ref>

*[[The Tillman Story]]
:A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister. Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The bias was clear, make Tillman a liberal atheist anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary. <ref>[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]</ref>

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:

:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony

:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists

:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful

:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

*[[Loose Change]]
:The 2005 9/11 conspiracy film that blames the U.S. government for attacking its own citizens.

*[[Recount]]
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref>

*[[Winter Soldiers]]
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.

*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created & hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. <ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]</ref>

*[[Fahrenheit 911]]
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.

*[[Sicko]]
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times. One of her marriages - to Felipe de Alba - was annulled after one day.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.
*[[Jayne Mansfield]] was married three times and had numerous extramarital affairs. She appeared in the centerfold of the pornographic magazine Playboy, and died in an automobile accident.
*[[Britney Spears]]' 2004 marriage to Jason Alexander lasted 55 hours.
*Musicians [[Cher]] and [[Gregg Allman]] were married for eight days in 1975.
*[[Drew Barrymore]] has two of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, one of 30 days and a five-month marriage to notorious lowbrow comedian Tom Green. Barrymore is a poster child for Hollywood values, as a former child star who became an alcoholic and drug addict who also posed for pornographic magazines.

== Offensive Behavior/Moral depravity ==

* [[Charlie Sheen]] to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/charlie-sheen-wife-brook-mueller-ill-kill-you/?test=latestnews Charlie Sheen to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You"]</ref>
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref>
*[[Charlie Sheen]] was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]</ref> Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife. He is also infamous for drug/alcohol abuse, having tried (and failed) numerous attempts in rehab clinics. In true Hollywood hypocristy, he currently stars in the sitcom Two and A Half Men, where he plays an "amusingly" alcohol-abusing ladies' man, except the lifestyle proves consequence-free.
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''"Baby Mason will bring our family together,"'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]</ref>
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. <ref>[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]</ref>
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]</ref>
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].
*[[John Cusack]] calls for satanic death cult to descend on Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and GOP welfare freaks. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders, FOXNews, August 31, 2010]</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], appearing in a Spike Lee film announces his desire to see BP executives get the death penalty. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pitt_death_penalty_for_bp.html Brad Pitt: Death Penalty For BP, Politico, August 23, 2010]</ref>

== Hollywood "humor" ==
Another manifestation of Hollywood's offensiveness and moral depravity is found in many of its "comedy" movies. More so than any other entertainment industry, many Hollywood productions rely on lowbrow, juvenile humor. Unlike more intelligent comedies of the early to mid-20th century (such as ''The Great Dictator'' or ''Arsenic and Old Lace''), many contemporary Hollywood comedies eschew intelligence, social commentary, wit or satire in favor of lower-hanging fruit, such as "toilet humor," nudity/sex, gratuitous violence and shock value. Examples of such films include:

*''American Pie'' - a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol, relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions
*''Jackass'' - essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story
*''South Park'' - uses constant iterations of urine, feces, farting and shock humor, such as jokes about abortion, rape and the Holocaust
*''There's Something About Mary'' - contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions
*''Family Guy'' - notorious for its shock tactics, this show routinely employs willful tastelessness for comedic shock value. Examples include one regular character who is a pedophile, as well as constant Hitler jokes

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]
*[[Courtney Love]]

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

*[[David Arquette]], enters rehab for for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/david-arquette-rehab-alcohol-courteney-cox-arquette.html David Arquette enters rehab; Courteney Cox supportive, L.A. Times, January 3, 2011]</ref>

*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled "The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox" discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said "why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in Middle America?” <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]</ref> or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State's]] Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

[[File:Celebrity.jpg|right|250px]]

==Award Shows==
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens.

*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. <ref>[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]</ref>
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kanye West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by [[Taylor Swift]]. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]</ref>
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. <ref>[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]</ref>
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. <ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]</ref>
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. <ref>[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]</ref>
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. <ref>[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]</ref>

==Preying on Underage Stars==

Very many child actors and actresses have gone on to have damaged and tragically short lives as a result of early exposure to Hollywood Values.

Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.” What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]</ref>

The father of teen idol Miley Cyrus said Disney destroyed their family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/15/billy-ray-cyrus-scared-daughter-miley-says-hannah-montana-destroyed-family/#?test=faces Billy Ray Cyrus Scared For Daughter Miley, Says Hannah Montana 'Destroyed My Family', Fox News, February 15, 2011 </ref> Billy Ray Cyrus accuses Miley's 'handlers' (Disney Executives) of going too far to promote her and when she got bad press they made the father the scapegoat.

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.

==Religion==
A short study of the ten most successful actors <ref>http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] </ref> shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.

[[Scientology]] is practiced by many Hollywood personalities. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are major spokesmen for this religion.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

==See also==
*[[Supermodel]]s
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]
*[[World Famous Pictures]]

{{Liberalism}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|3}}

==External Links==
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]
*[http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/news/articles/2010/mtvmovieawards.asp Parent's Television Council: MTV’s Movie Awards Will Honor Profanity]
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100802 From Hollywood: to Hitler with love (Stalin, too)]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/17/dumbest-things-celebs-said/?test=faces Ten Dumbest Things Celebs Said in 2010]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2011/01/04/foul-mouthed-celebs/?test=faces#slide=1 Foul Mouthed Celebrities]
*[http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2011/01/04/pop_culture_killing_classic_tr.html Pop Culture Killing Classic Traditions]
[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Hollywood values

2011-02-15T16:54:52Z

TrevS: /* Preying on Underage Stars */ point

[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], [[abortion]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death. A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that "Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years."<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/</ref>

The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.

There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Pat Boone]], [[Paul Schofield]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and ''Independence Day'' (a movie about [[Independence Day]]) being recent examples.

Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:

* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]
* [[patriotism]]
* [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] (Hollywood's profits depend on the [[advertising]] and sale of [[materialism|material goods]] and other superficial "solutions" to problems.)
* [[accountability]]
* the U.S. military<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]</ref>
* family responsibilities, like childrearing<ref>[[Britney Spears]] "doesn't want [her] kids back." [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]</ref>
* laws that apply to everyone else
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency

In addition, Hollywood portrays these values as rebellious and [[counterculture|countercultural]]. They portray religious and spiritual institutions as greedy, self-serving, sexually perverted, prejudiced, ignorant, and unscientific. When comparing the satisfaction brought about by faith, spirituality, family, and friendship, which may happen to include donations to a church or other organization, it is clear that the profits of Hollywood and the industries which rely upon Hollywood for profit are the true establishment - thus making traditional values truly rebellious and countercultural, and Hollywood values a lie.

==Deaths ==
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.<ref>http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm</ref> A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&page=1</ref><ref>http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing</ref>
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 </ref>
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio</ref>
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as "Johnny Cakes", shot himself in the head. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008</ref>
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]</ref>
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a</ref>
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm</ref>
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his drug-addicted third wife Brynn Hartman
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html</ref>
*[[Russell Tyrone Jones]] (a.k,a. "Old Dirty Bastard"), 35, musician, died of drug overdose two days before his 36th birthday
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. <ref>[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]</ref>
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. "Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose." "Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday." <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html</ref>
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested "a homosexual motive".
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]</ref> Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], "died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications".
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.
*[[Freddie Prinze]], 22, actor from Chico and the Man committed suicide by gunshot to the head.
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]</ref>
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs
*[[Dorothy Stratten]], 20, murdered by spouse after engaging in extramarital affair
*[[David Strickland]], 29, cast member of NBC's Suddenly Susan hung himself in a Las Vegas hotel.
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house. (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) <ref>The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]</ref> <ref>Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]</ref>
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html</ref> Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song "Junkhead"<ref>http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45</ref>
*[[Paul Gray]], 38, bassist of heavy metal band Slipknot, died of an overdose of morphine and fentanyl. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_en_mu/us_slipknot_bassist_autopsy</ref>
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, a.k.a Savanna, a pornographic film star, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.

==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases. Examples include,

* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications.
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.

== Crime ==
'''Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes. Here are some examples:'''

* [[Paris Hilton]] was arrested in Las Vegas, 8/27/2010, for possession of a controlled substance, [[Cocaine]]. The hotel heiress was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. The driver was arrested for DUI '''pertaining to drugs, not alcohol'''. Through further interaction between Hilton and authorities, it was discovered she was in possession of a controlled substance. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/28/paris-hilton-arrested-drug-possession/ Paris Hilton arrested in Las Vegas.]</ref>
* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in "Free Willy" and "A League of their Own" and ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.<ref>http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906</ref>
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's "The Office," "was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html</ref>
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.<ref>http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/</ref>
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial. He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007</ref>
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.<ref>[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]</ref>
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.<ref>Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]</ref>
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of "committing a lewd act in public", having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer. Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. <ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921</ref>
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian<ref>http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html</ref> who advocates marijuana use.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=21457</ref>
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges. "The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday."<ref>http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001</ref>
*[[Martha Stewart]] was charged with illegal [[insider trading]] in 2003.<ref>[http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm SEC press release (SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading)]</ref>
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. <ref>
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.</ref>
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: "I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was."
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges</ref>
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002<ref>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html</ref>
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.<ref>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA</ref>
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008</ref>
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008</ref> he was sentenced to death for committing murder.<ref>http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=66850</ref>
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html</ref> Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/</ref>
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's "24" star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009</ref>
*Actor Elmore "Rip" Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]</ref>
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]</ref>
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. <ref>[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]</ref>
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. <ref>[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]</ref>
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. <ref>[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]</ref>
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's "Survivor" series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]</ref>
*Actor Chris Klein, star of the American Pie films, which glorify sex and alcohol abuse, was arrested for drunk driving in June 2010<ref>http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/american-pie-chris-klein-busted-for-dui-arrest/</ref>
*Actor Michael Brea played roles in Ugly Betty and Step Up 3D, kills his 55-year old mother with a sword while yelling Bible verses. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ugly-betty-actor-allegedly-kills-mother-foot-sword-screaming-repent/ 'Ugly Betty' Actor Allegedly Kills Mother With 3-Foot Sword While Screaming 'Repent', FOX News, November 24, 2010]</ref>
*TV host and actor Gary Collins was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly leaving a restaurant without paying his $59.35 tab. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/05/tv-host-gary-collins-arrested-skipping-restaurant/ TV Host Gary Collins Arrested for Skipping Out on $59 Restaurant Bill, FOXNews, January 5, 2011]</ref>
*Actress Jaime Pressly was arrested for driving under the influence. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/jaime-pressly-wasted-dui-arrest/ Jaime Pressly Blew Nearly Three Times Legal Limit on Breathalyzer Before Arrest, Fox News, January 11, 2011 ]</ref>
*Korey Rowe, producer of the 9/11 conspiracy film ''Loose Change'' is arrested for selling heroin. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/31/conspiracy-film-producer-arrested-drug-charges/?test=latestnews 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Drug Charges, Fox News, January 31, 2011]</ref>
*Lindsay Lohan is facing felony grand theft charge, she was accused of stealing a $2500 necklace from a Venice boutique. <ref>[ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/05/lindsay-lohan-facing-years-state-prison-jewelry-theft Lindsay Lohan Facing Three Years in State Prison, Fox News, February 5, 2011]</ref>

== Falsehoods ==

[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:

*[[Inside Job]]
:A 2010 film by Democrat donor Charles Ferguson that blames the Great Recession on [[Wall Street]], deregulation, the [[Bush Administration]]. The film whitewashes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role and claims the financial system corrupted politics. Capitalists are the bad guys.
*[[Fair Game]]
:Another Bush bash flick starring communist [[Sean Penn]]. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the war in Iraq and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. Typical un-American Hollywood film ''"The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses."'' <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war/ Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war The Daily Caller, November 11, 2010]</ref>
*[[The Iron Lady]]
: Meryl Streep plays [[Margaret Thatcher]] in this gross mistake of a film. Liberals distort her triumphs and her low career points. Streep portrays Thatcher as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness. The director defended the film as "a fictional film but it will be fair and accurate.” Thatcher's children Mark and Carol are appalled and say “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy." <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html Margaret Thatcher's family are 'appalled' at Meryl Streep film, Telegraphe.co.uk, July 17, 2010]</ref>

*[[The Tillman Story]]
:A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister. Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The bias was clear, make Tillman a liberal atheist anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary. <ref>[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]</ref>

*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]
:Adherents to Hollywood values "green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough? Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story</ref>

*[[Inherit the Wind]]
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:

:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony

:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists

:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful

:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.

*[[U 571]]
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]]. However, in the film the capture is made by Americans. In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.

*[[Loose Change]]
:The 2005 9/11 conspiracy film that blames the U.S. government for attacking its own citizens.

*[[Recount]]
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008</ref>

*[[Winter Soldiers]]
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.

*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created & hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. <ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]</ref>

*[[Fahrenheit 911]]
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.

*[[Sicko]]
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.

==Disrespect for marriage==

Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.

*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio</ref>
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was "destroying my body," trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008</ref>
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times. One of her marriages - to Felipe de Alba - was annulled after one day.
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.
*[[Jayne Mansfield]] was married three times and had numerous extramarital affairs. She appeared in the centerfold of the pornographic magazine Playboy, and died in an automobile accident.
*[[Britney Spears]]' 2004 marriage to Jason Alexander lasted 55 hours.
*Musicians [[Cher]] and [[Gregg Allman]] were married for eight days in 1975.
*[[Drew Barrymore]] has two of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, one of 30 days and a five-month marriage to notorious lowbrow comedian Tom Green. Barrymore is a poster child for Hollywood values, as a former child star who became an alcoholic and drug addict who also posed for pornographic magazines.

== Offensive Behavior/Moral depravity ==

* [[Charlie Sheen]] to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/charlie-sheen-wife-brook-mueller-ill-kill-you/?test=latestnews Charlie Sheen to Wife Brooke Mueller: "I'll Kill You"]</ref>
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types. Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]</ref>
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.<ref>''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]</ref> A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006</ref>
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless "topless"]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html</ref> "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. "I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about." <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
:"... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," a network statement said. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0</ref>
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008</ref>
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres "married" Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it "the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008</ref> Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008</ref>
*[[Charlie Sheen]] was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]</ref> Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife. He is also infamous for drug/alcohol abuse, having tried (and failed) numerous attempts in rehab clinics. In true Hollywood hypocristy, he currently stars in the sitcom Two and A Half Men, where he plays an "amusingly" alcohol-abusing ladies' man, except the lifestyle proves consequence-free.
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''"Baby Mason will bring our family together,"'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]</ref>
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. <ref>[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]</ref>
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]</ref>
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].
*[[John Cusack]] calls for satanic death cult to descend on Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and GOP welfare freaks. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders, FOXNews, August 31, 2010]</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], appearing in a Spike Lee film announces his desire to see BP executives get the death penalty. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pitt_death_penalty_for_bp.html Brad Pitt: Death Penalty For BP, Politico, August 23, 2010]</ref>

== Hollywood "humor" ==
Another manifestation of Hollywood's offensiveness and moral depravity is found in many of its "comedy" movies. More so than any other entertainment industry, many Hollywood productions rely on lowbrow, juvenile humor. Unlike more intelligent comedies of the early to mid-20th century (such as ''The Great Dictator'' or ''Arsenic and Old Lace''), many contemporary Hollywood comedies eschew intelligence, social commentary, wit or satire in favor of lower-hanging fruit, such as "toilet humor," nudity/sex, gratuitous violence and shock value. Examples of such films include:

*''American Pie'' - a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol, relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions
*''Jackass'' - essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story
*''South Park'' - uses constant iterations of urine, feces, farting and shock humor, such as jokes about abortion, rape and the Holocaust
*''There's Something About Mary'' - contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions
*''Family Guy'' - notorious for its shock tactics, this show routinely employs willful tastelessness for comedic shock value. Examples include one regular character who is a pedophile, as well as constant Hitler jokes

== Rehab ==
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:

*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. <ref name = "foxkirsten">
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008</ref>

The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:

*[[Lindsay Lohan]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Eva Mendes]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]<ref name = "foxkirsten"/>
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]
*[[Courtney Love]]

*[[Heather Locklear]]<ref>"A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'" She "checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression."[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]</ref>

*[[David Arquette]], enters rehab for for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/david-arquette-rehab-alcohol-courteney-cox-arquette.html David Arquette enters rehab; Courteney Cox supportive, L.A. Times, January 3, 2011]</ref>

*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829</ref>.

== Hypocrisy ==

Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions:

* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''"I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."''<ref>http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml</ref> Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.

* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, "It was very disturbing meeting you." Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''"I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association."''<ref>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360</ref> Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.

* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.

==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] "doesn't care about black people."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html</ref>
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place." She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for "Bowling for Columbine," saying, "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you."<ref>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html</ref>
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, "We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list."<ref>http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html</ref>
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled "The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox" discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said "why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in Middle America?” <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com</ref>

==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]</ref> or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State's]] Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, "Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction." <ref>[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research</ref>

[[File:Celebrity.jpg|right|250px]]

==Award Shows==
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens.

*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. <ref>[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]</ref>
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kanye West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by [[Taylor Swift]]. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]</ref>
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. <ref>[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]</ref>
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. <ref>[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]</ref>
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. <ref>[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]</ref>
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. <ref>[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]</ref>

==Preying on Underage Stars==

Very many child actors have gone on to have damaged and tragically short lives as a result of early exposure to Hollywood Values.

Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.” What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]</ref>

The father of teen idol Miley Cyrus said Disney destroyed their family. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/15/billy-ray-cyrus-scared-daughter-miley-says-hannah-montana-destroyed-family/#?test=faces Billy Ray Cyrus Scared For Daughter Miley, Says Hannah Montana 'Destroyed My Family', Fox News, February 15, 2011 </ref> Billy Ray Cyrus accuses Miley's 'handlers' (Disney Executives) of going too far to promote her and when she got bad press they made the father the scapegoat.

==Productions==
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.

==Religion==
A short study of the ten most successful actors <ref>http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] </ref> shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.

[[Scientology]] is practiced by many Hollywood personalities. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are major spokesmen for this religion.

==Books==
* ''Hollywood Against America''
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger

==See also==
*[[Supermodel]]s
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]
*[[World Famous Pictures]]

{{Liberalism}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|3}}

==External Links==
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]
*[http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/news/articles/2010/mtvmovieawards.asp Parent's Television Council: MTV’s Movie Awards Will Honor Profanity]
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100802 From Hollywood: to Hitler with love (Stalin, too)]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/17/dumbest-things-celebs-said/?test=faces Ten Dumbest Things Celebs Said in 2010]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2011/01/04/foul-mouthed-celebs/?test=faces#slide=1 Foul Mouthed Celebrities]
*[http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2011/01/04/pop_culture_killing_classic_tr.html Pop Culture Killing Classic Traditions]
[[category:entertainment]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Communist Party of Great Britain

2010-08-28T14:40:52Z

TrevS: /* The CPGB and the Second World War */

The '''Communist Party of Great Britain''' (CPGB) was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991. It was founded at the behest of V.I. [[Lenin]] and was formed by the merger of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party (based on 'Red Clydeside') and the Workers' Socialist Federation, run by [[Sylvia Pankhurst]]. From the start it received support and orders from the [[Soviet Union]], directed through the [[Moscow]]-based standing organisation of the Third Communist International, better known as [[Comintern]].

===Early years===

In the years between its foundation and the outbreak of the [[Second World War]] the CPGB was successful in building up membership and support. It was able to benefit from the seeming inability of more mainstream parties to successfully act against rising unemployment and economic crisis, and against the rise of [[Fascism]]. It alternated between policies (decided in Moscow and applied worldwide, even if contradicting local political circumstances) of sectarian opposition to other left-of-centre parties, and attempts to build up a 'popular front' with socialists and social democrats. It also attracted the support of many intellectuals and was able to pose as a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|revolutionary artistic vanguard]]. Communists contributed much of the manpower (and most of the political control) to the Clement Attlee Brigade of British volunteers in the [[International Brigades]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]].

===The CPGB and the Second World War===

The [[Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact]] of 1939 led [[Comintern]] to instruct the CPGB to oppose the war (which it had been supporting as an anti-Fascist war). This caused much internal dissent and defection, as well as the dropping of its long-time General Secretary, [[Harry Pollitt]] (1890-1960). The CPGB newspaper, the [[Morning Star|Daily Worker]], was for a time suppressed by the British Government. However, following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 Pollitt was recalled, the party threw itself into the war effort, and Communist officials were active in attempts to prevent strikes.

===The post-war years===

The party emerged from the war at the peak of its popularity and prestige. Two Communist MPs were elected at the 1945 general election, and membership was at a peak. Comintern had been dissolved in 1943, and the party was theoretically free to decide its own policies. However, it remained ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, and over succeeding decades membership fell away as the nature of Soviet rule became increasingly apparent in the west and as the [[Cold War]] took hold of global foreign policy decisions. Major crisis points were the Soviet interventions in [[Hungary]] in 1956 (which saw a huge drop in membership) and that in [[Czechoslovakia]] in 1968.

By the later 1960s and 1970s the party, bereft of MPs and a popular voting base, decided to concentrate on exploiting its influence within the trades union movement. This was to be relatively successful - members and sympathisers held several senior positions in the movement - but was to backfire spectacularly as popular disquiet at what was perceived as excessive and irresponsible trade union power was a major factor in securing the election of a [[Conservative Party]] government under [[Margaret Thatcher]] in 1979.

Conservative trade union reforms demolished the CPGB industrial strategy; reformist government in the Soviet Union was to bring and end to the Cold War and to the eastern bloc monolith itself. However, neither of these factors was decisive in bringing about the demise of the CPGB. Instead, it tore itself apart in a series of feuds between hard-line 'tankies'<ref>so called because they supported the use of Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia</ref> and reformist 'Eurocommunists'; eventually, the disputes were as much about control of the party assets and the party newspaper (by now renamed the [[Morning Star]] as they were about ideological differences.

===End of the CPGB===

In 1977 one hard-line faction left the party to become the New Communist Party<ref>http://www.newworker.org/</ref>, while in 1988 a major split occurred when a large number of 'tankies' left to form the Communist Party of Britain<ref>http://www.communist-party.org.uk/</ref>. The residual CPGB decided in 1991 to dissolve itself and reform itself as Democratic Left; this also dissolved in the late 1990s and was refounded as New Politics Network; in 2006 NPN started the process of merger with the British constitutional reform campaign group [[Charter 88]] under the name Unlock Democracy<ref>http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=490</ref>

===References===
<references/>

===Sources===
Francis Beckett, ''Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party'' (2nd ed Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK 1998)

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Communist Party of Great Britain

2010-08-28T14:40:24Z

TrevS: /* The CPGB and the Second World War */

The '''Communist Party of Great Britain''' (CPGB) was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991. It was founded at the behest of V.I. [[Lenin]] and was formed by the merger of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party (based on 'Red Clydeside') and the Workers' Socialist Federation, run by [[Sylvia Pankhurst]]. From the start it received support and orders from the [[Soviet Union]], directed through the [[Moscow]]-based standing organisation of the Third Communist International, better known as [[Comintern]].

===Early years===

In the years between its foundation and the outbreak of the [[Second World War]] the CPGB was successful in building up membership and support. It was able to benefit from the seeming inability of more mainstream parties to successfully act against rising unemployment and economic crisis, and against the rise of [[Fascism]]. It alternated between policies (decided in Moscow and applied worldwide, even if contradicting local political circumstances) of sectarian opposition to other left-of-centre parties, and attempts to build up a 'popular front' with socialists and social democrats. It also attracted the support of many intellectuals and was able to pose as a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|revolutionary artistic vanguard]]. Communists contributed much of the manpower (and most of the political control) to the Clement Attlee Brigade of British volunteers in the [[International Brigades]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]].

===The CPGB and the Second World War===

The [[Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact]] of 1939 led [[Comintern]] to instruct the CPGB to oppose the war (which it had been supporting as an anti-Fascist war). This caused much internal dissent and defection, as well as the dropping of its long-time General Secretary, [[Harry Pollitt]] (1890-1960). The CPGB newspaper, the [[Daily Worker|Morning Star]], was for a time suppressed by the British Government. However, following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 Pollitt was recalled, the party threw itself into the war effort, and Communist officials were active in attempts to prevent strikes.

===The post-war years===

The party emerged from the war at the peak of its popularity and prestige. Two Communist MPs were elected at the 1945 general election, and membership was at a peak. Comintern had been dissolved in 1943, and the party was theoretically free to decide its own policies. However, it remained ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, and over succeeding decades membership fell away as the nature of Soviet rule became increasingly apparent in the west and as the [[Cold War]] took hold of global foreign policy decisions. Major crisis points were the Soviet interventions in [[Hungary]] in 1956 (which saw a huge drop in membership) and that in [[Czechoslovakia]] in 1968.

By the later 1960s and 1970s the party, bereft of MPs and a popular voting base, decided to concentrate on exploiting its influence within the trades union movement. This was to be relatively successful - members and sympathisers held several senior positions in the movement - but was to backfire spectacularly as popular disquiet at what was perceived as excessive and irresponsible trade union power was a major factor in securing the election of a [[Conservative Party]] government under [[Margaret Thatcher]] in 1979.

Conservative trade union reforms demolished the CPGB industrial strategy; reformist government in the Soviet Union was to bring and end to the Cold War and to the eastern bloc monolith itself. However, neither of these factors was decisive in bringing about the demise of the CPGB. Instead, it tore itself apart in a series of feuds between hard-line 'tankies'<ref>so called because they supported the use of Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia</ref> and reformist 'Eurocommunists'; eventually, the disputes were as much about control of the party assets and the party newspaper (by now renamed the [[Morning Star]] as they were about ideological differences.

===End of the CPGB===

In 1977 one hard-line faction left the party to become the New Communist Party<ref>http://www.newworker.org/</ref>, while in 1988 a major split occurred when a large number of 'tankies' left to form the Communist Party of Britain<ref>http://www.communist-party.org.uk/</ref>. The residual CPGB decided in 1991 to dissolve itself and reform itself as Democratic Left; this also dissolved in the late 1990s and was refounded as New Politics Network; in 2006 NPN started the process of merger with the British constitutional reform campaign group [[Charter 88]] under the name Unlock Democracy<ref>http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=490</ref>

===References===
<references/>

===Sources===
Francis Beckett, ''Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party'' (2nd ed Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK 1998)

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Communist Party of Great Britain

2010-08-28T14:39:04Z

TrevS: /* The CPGB and the Second World War */ CPGB paper was known as the Daily Worker at this time

The '''Communist Party of Great Britain''' (CPGB) was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991. It was founded at the behest of V.I. [[Lenin]] and was formed by the merger of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party (based on 'Red Clydeside') and the Workers' Socialist Federation, run by [[Sylvia Pankhurst]]. From the start it received support and orders from the [[Soviet Union]], directed through the [[Moscow]]-based standing organisation of the Third Communist International, better known as [[Comintern]].

===Early years===

In the years between its foundation and the outbreak of the [[Second World War]] the CPGB was successful in building up membership and support. It was able to benefit from the seeming inability of more mainstream parties to successfully act against rising unemployment and economic crisis, and against the rise of [[Fascism]]. It alternated between policies (decided in Moscow and applied worldwide, even if contradicting local political circumstances) of sectarian opposition to other left-of-centre parties, and attempts to build up a 'popular front' with socialists and social democrats. It also attracted the support of many intellectuals and was able to pose as a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|revolutionary artistic vanguard]]. Communists contributed much of the manpower (and most of the political control) to the Clement Attlee Brigade of British volunteers in the [[International Brigades]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]].

===The CPGB and the Second World War===

The [[Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact]] of 1939 led [[Comintern]] to instruct the CPGB to oppose the war (which it had been supporting as an anti-Fascist war). This caused much internal dissent and defection, as well as the dropping of its long-time General Secretary, [[Harry Pollitt]] (1890-1960). The CPGB newspaper, the [[Daily Worker]], was for a time suppressed by the British Government. However, following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 Pollitt was recalled, the party threw itself into the war effort, and Communist officials were active in attempts to prevent strikes.

===The post-war years===

The party emerged from the war at the peak of its popularity and prestige. Two Communist MPs were elected at the 1945 general election, and membership was at a peak. Comintern had been dissolved in 1943, and the party was theoretically free to decide its own policies. However, it remained ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, and over succeeding decades membership fell away as the nature of Soviet rule became increasingly apparent in the west and as the [[Cold War]] took hold of global foreign policy decisions. Major crisis points were the Soviet interventions in [[Hungary]] in 1956 (which saw a huge drop in membership) and that in [[Czechoslovakia]] in 1968.

By the later 1960s and 1970s the party, bereft of MPs and a popular voting base, decided to concentrate on exploiting its influence within the trades union movement. This was to be relatively successful - members and sympathisers held several senior positions in the movement - but was to backfire spectacularly as popular disquiet at what was perceived as excessive and irresponsible trade union power was a major factor in securing the election of a [[Conservative Party]] government under [[Margaret Thatcher]] in 1979.

Conservative trade union reforms demolished the CPGB industrial strategy; reformist government in the Soviet Union was to bring and end to the Cold War and to the eastern bloc monolith itself. However, neither of these factors was decisive in bringing about the demise of the CPGB. Instead, it tore itself apart in a series of feuds between hard-line 'tankies'<ref>so called because they supported the use of Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia</ref> and reformist 'Eurocommunists'; eventually, the disputes were as much about control of the party assets and the party newspaper (by now renamed the [[Morning Star]] as they were about ideological differences.

===End of the CPGB===

In 1977 one hard-line faction left the party to become the New Communist Party<ref>http://www.newworker.org/</ref>, while in 1988 a major split occurred when a large number of 'tankies' left to form the Communist Party of Britain<ref>http://www.communist-party.org.uk/</ref>. The residual CPGB decided in 1991 to dissolve itself and reform itself as Democratic Left; this also dissolved in the late 1990s and was refounded as New Politics Network; in 2006 NPN started the process of merger with the British constitutional reform campaign group [[Charter 88]] under the name Unlock Democracy<ref>http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=490</ref>

===References===
<references/>

===Sources===
Francis Beckett, ''Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party'' (2nd ed Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK 1998)

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Communist Party of Great Britain

2010-08-28T14:38:14Z

TrevS: /* The CPGB and the Second World War */

The '''Communist Party of Great Britain''' (CPGB) was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991. It was founded at the behest of V.I. [[Lenin]] and was formed by the merger of the British Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party (based on 'Red Clydeside') and the Workers' Socialist Federation, run by [[Sylvia Pankhurst]]. From the start it received support and orders from the [[Soviet Union]], directed through the [[Moscow]]-based standing organisation of the Third Communist International, better known as [[Comintern]].

===Early years===

In the years between its foundation and the outbreak of the [[Second World War]] the CPGB was successful in building up membership and support. It was able to benefit from the seeming inability of more mainstream parties to successfully act against rising unemployment and economic crisis, and against the rise of [[Fascism]]. It alternated between policies (decided in Moscow and applied worldwide, even if contradicting local political circumstances) of sectarian opposition to other left-of-centre parties, and attempts to build up a 'popular front' with socialists and social democrats. It also attracted the support of many intellectuals and was able to pose as a [[Revolutionary Vanguard|revolutionary artistic vanguard]]. Communists contributed much of the manpower (and most of the political control) to the Clement Attlee Brigade of British volunteers in the [[International Brigades]] during the [[Spanish Civil War]].

===The CPGB and the Second World War===

The [[Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact]] of 1939 led [[Comintern]] to instruct the CPGB to oppose the war (which it had been supporting as an anti-Fascist war). This caused much internal dissent and defection, as well as the dropping of its long-time General Secretary, [[Harry Pollitt]] (1890-1960). The CPGB newspaper, the [[Daily Worker|Morning Star]], was for a time suppressed by the British Government. However, following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 Pollitt was recalled, the party threw itself into the war effort, and Communist officials were active in attempts to prevent strikes.

===The post-war years===

The party emerged from the war at the peak of its popularity and prestige. Two Communist MPs were elected at the 1945 general election, and membership was at a peak. Comintern had been dissolved in 1943, and the party was theoretically free to decide its own policies. However, it remained ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, and over succeeding decades membership fell away as the nature of Soviet rule became increasingly apparent in the west and as the [[Cold War]] took hold of global foreign policy decisions. Major crisis points were the Soviet interventions in [[Hungary]] in 1956 (which saw a huge drop in membership) and that in [[Czechoslovakia]] in 1968.

By the later 1960s and 1970s the party, bereft of MPs and a popular voting base, decided to concentrate on exploiting its influence within the trades union movement. This was to be relatively successful - members and sympathisers held several senior positions in the movement - but was to backfire spectacularly as popular disquiet at what was perceived as excessive and irresponsible trade union power was a major factor in securing the election of a [[Conservative Party]] government under [[Margaret Thatcher]] in 1979.

Conservative trade union reforms demolished the CPGB industrial strategy; reformist government in the Soviet Union was to bring and end to the Cold War and to the eastern bloc monolith itself. However, neither of these factors was decisive in bringing about the demise of the CPGB. Instead, it tore itself apart in a series of feuds between hard-line 'tankies'<ref>so called because they supported the use of Soviet tanks in Czechoslovakia</ref> and reformist 'Eurocommunists'; eventually, the disputes were as much about control of the party assets and the party newspaper (by now renamed the [[Morning Star]] as they were about ideological differences.

===End of the CPGB===

In 1977 one hard-line faction left the party to become the New Communist Party<ref>http://www.newworker.org/</ref>, while in 1988 a major split occurred when a large number of 'tankies' left to form the Communist Party of Britain<ref>http://www.communist-party.org.uk/</ref>. The residual CPGB decided in 1991 to dissolve itself and reform itself as Democratic Left; this also dissolved in the late 1990s and was refounded as New Politics Network; in 2006 NPN started the process of merger with the British constitutional reform campaign group [[Charter 88]] under the name Unlock Democracy<ref>http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=490</ref>

===References===
<references/>

===Sources===
Francis Beckett, ''Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party'' (2nd ed Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK 1998)

[[Category:British Political Parties]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Mystery:Why Do Liberals Crave Attention?

2010-08-24T18:39:47Z

TrevS:

[[Liberals]] crave attention more than others. Why?

Here are several possible reasons:

*liberals are jealous of [[God]], and seek attention so they can pretend to be like God
*liberals are self-centered and highly selfish, and most of what they do is focused on themselves
*liberals are unable to do anything meaningful, so craving attention fills the vacuum
*those who can, do; those who can't instead crave attention to make up for their lack of genuine efforts
*craving attention is associated with less intelligence; liberals are often intellectual wannabees rather than genuinely bright
*Liberals know they only make up twenty percent of the population while conservatives account for 40. When you're outnumbered two to one, the only thing left to do is demand attention like they were a majority.

== Filling the Vacuum ==

[[Liberals]] typically have a lack of [[faith]], and sometimes even a disdain for it. This leaves an enormous void or vacuum to be filled. Some liberals fill it by watching television. Other liberals fill that vacuum it by trying to be on television, or the equivalent in attracting attention.

Similarly, the denial - inherent in liberalism - of the natural order of human relationships leaves individual liberals unable to form healthy relationships. Instead, attention craving takes the form of unhealthy addictions, malfunctioning relationships and the sort of behaviour associated with [[Hollywood values]].

[[Category:mystery]]

British politics

2010-08-21T20:26:49Z

TrevS: /* Labour */ not the only opposition party

'''British politics''' take place within the context of a democratic [[parliamentary]] system dominated by three major parties. Currently, there is a coalition government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats

The political culture of the UK tends to be more liberal than that of the United States, but less so than that of many other European nations. [[File:Brit-history.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Institutions==
===Parliament===

''See also [[Parliament]]''

The cornerstone of the uncodified British [[constitution]] is ''Parliamentary supremacy'', or ''Parliamentary sovereignty''.

Britain is one of a small number of nations without a codified constitution, and the British legislature, ''Parliament'', is free to legislate however it pleases. In British law, the only authority higher than parliamentary legislation is the law of the [[European Union]], and Britain is subject to EU law only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has chosen to accept it.

Parliament consists of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]]. The Queen today takes no part in active politics (the last time that a monarch refused to ratify a law passed by the Lords and Commons was in 1714). While the House of Lords is considered to be the more prestigious chamber, the Commons is dominant by virtue of the fact that its members are elected rather than appointed. The Lords can only delay rather than veto legislation, though the Commons rarely chooses to push through laws against the Lords' wishes (it has done so only five times since the Lords' absolute veto was removed in 1911).

Reform of the House of Lords is a current political issue in the UK. The House of Commons has resolved to make it more democratic, so that 80% or 100% of its members are elected rather than appointed.

===The Executive===

The British Government operates in the name of the Queen (or the "Crown"), but power lies in practice with the '''Prime Minister''' and his '''Cabinet'''. The British Prime Minister has one of the most powerful roles of any democratic head of government or head of state (though some, like the French President, have similar or more extensive powers).

Contrary to popular opinion, the British Prime Minister can be of any religion - for example, Iain Duncan-Smith, a Catholic, was made leader of the Conservative Party while in opposition which would have made him Prime Minister had the party won a general election at that time. In addition, [[Margaret Thatcher]] was a Methodist rather than an Anglican. Not many British political commentators make any mention of religion, and religion is not considered a major deciding factor in elections. The faith or denominations of party leaders is not well known.

The only relevant legislation that exists demands that the Monarch be Anglican; however, the now defunct position of advising the monarch on ecclesiastical affairs could have fallen to any member of the cabinet. No legislation exists which regulates the religion of the Prime Minister or any other member of parliament.

== Devolution ==

{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Nation/Region || Legislature || Executive || Leader(s)
|-
| '''[[Scotland]]''' || [[Scottish Parliament]] || Scottish Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Wales]]''' || National Assembly for Wales || Welsh Assembly Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Northern Ireland]]''' || Northern Ireland Assembly || Northern Ireland Executive || First Minister and Deputy First Minister1
|-
| '''[[London|Greater London]]''' || London Assembly|| Mayor of London || Mayor of London
|}


1 Northern Ireland is a dyarchy in which both leaders are regarded as equal.


==Local government==

Each locality in the UK has its own '''local authority''': there are '''councils''' of various sorts, as well as a number of elected '''mayors''' (most notably in London, whose current mayor is the sometimes controversial Conservative politician [[Boris Johnson]]). The powers of local authorities have been seen as declining for many years, however one of the main aims of the new coalition government is to reverse this.

It should be noted that most mayors in Britain are relatively powerless officials who serve as mere figureheads, in a similar way to the Monarch, as the power is with the local council, of which the mayor is the leader. However, a number of cities, such as London, have powerful mayors with a full executive role.

==Parties==

The British political spectrum has historically been dominated by the '''[[Labour Party]]''' on the left, the '''[[Conservative Party]]''' on the right, and the '''Liberal Party''' (now the [[Liberal Democrats]]) in the centre between them ("liberal" in British political terminology is often used to mean "centrist" or "moderate", rather than "left-wing"). In theory, these parties represent the three main political ideologies; liberal, conservative and socialist, but recently, there has been a perception that the main parties are crowding together on the centre ground. In the 1990s, Labour moved decisively away from the traditional left (angering many of its more traditionally-minded supporters), to the point where it was perceived by many as being less left-wing than the Liberal Democrats. Since the advent of [[David Cameron]] as its leader in 2005, the Conservative Party has moved away from the territory of the traditional right (in this case too, angering many of its more strongly conservative or [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] supporters).

===Labour===
see also [[Labour Party]]

The [[Labour Party]] is currently the main opposition party in the UK and in the process of electing a new leader..<ref> It is also the largest party in the Welsh legislature and the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament.</ref>

Following its defeat by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979, the Labour Party adopted a strongly left-wing, socialist program. Following a catastrophic defeat in the 1983 general election, more moderate politicians took charge of Labour and slowly moved it closer to the centre ground of British politics, a process started by [[Neil Kinnock]] in the mid-1980s and carried forward enthusiastically by [[Tony Blair]] after his election as leader in 1994. Many more traditional, left-wing Labour supporters see Tony Blair as an usurper whose policies are too right-wing for comfort. This has been the case in particular following the Iraq War.

Blair's policies were arguably a mixture of left (e.g. higher taxes, higher government spending, greater integration with the European Union, equal rights for gay people) and right (e.g. pro-market reforms in the public services, retention of Lady Thatcher's labour laws, support for the [[War on Terror]] and [[George W. Bush]]'s foreign policies). His successor [[Gordon Brown]], once a close ally of Blair, has spoken out against the idea of the party shifting back to the left. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were both seen as modernists within the Labour Party before they were elected to power in 1997.

===Conservatives===
* Also See: [[Conservative Party]]
British conservatism has traditionally been a moderate, non-ideological creed: its heroes include such pragmatic figures as [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century and Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth century. These figures contrasted with contemporary conservatives from other European countries such as the French thinker [[Joseph de Maistre]], who were often strong, ideologically-minded supporters of absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism.

The Conservative Party became more ideologically conservative during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher]] (1975-1990). Since Lady Thatcher resigned in 1990s, the strongly conservative element within the party has been more or less eclipsed. It had some influence in the 1990s during the leadership of Sir John Major (1990-1997), but the current Conservative leader, [[David Cameron]], has moved decisively away from "Thatcherism". While this has caused dismay to many Conservative activists, it has greatly increased the popularity and electability of the Conservative Party.

===Liberal Democrats===

The Liberal Democrats (or "Lib Dems") were formed in 1988 by the merger of the old centrist Liberal Party with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP). They have long advocated disestablishing the [[Church of England]], and their current leader is [[Nick Clegg]], who has publicly said he is "not an active believer" in God, but claims to be "open-minded" about religion, has married a Catholic and is bringing his children up as Catholics.<ref>''Nick Clegg is a believer in families, not God'' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3076044.ece Times Online]</ref>

The Liberal Democrats are divided between a relatively left-wing faction (to which the former leaders Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy belong), which has taken positions to the left of the Labour Party on a number of issues, and a more right-wing, pro-[[free market]] faction to which the present leader belongs (several of whose members contributed to a controversial collection of essays published in 2004 called ''The Orange Book''). Despite the range of view on economic issues, the party is consistently liberal, even libertarian, on social issues. The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of anti-discrimination laws.

=== Scotland ===
The largest party in the [[Scottish Parliament]] is the '''[[Scottish National Party]]'''. Among other policies it advocates independence for Scotland.

=== Wales ===
There is also a Welsh nationalist party, called '''Plaid Cymru''', or simply '''Plaid''', which currently in coalition with Labour has control of the [[Welsh Assembly]].

=== Northern Ireland ===
Northern Ireland has a number of political parties:
* '''[[Democratic Unionist Party]]''' - strongly Unionist
* '''[[Sinn Fein]]''' - strongly Irish-Nationalist ("Republican")
* '''[[Ulster Unionist Party]]''' - moderately Unionist
* '''[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]]''' - moderately Irish-Nationalist

===Minor parties===
There are several other minor British parties worthy of mention:
* The '''[[UK Independence Party]]''' advocates the withdrawal of Britain from the [[European Union]] and other more strongly conservative policies than those supported by the official Conservative Party.
* The '''[[Green Party (UK)|Green Party]]''' is a left-wing party that advocates major constraints on economic acitity in order to prevent alleged anthropogenic global warming.
* '''[[RESPECT Party|Respect]]''' is a strongly left-wing, socialist party led by the maverick ex-Labour politician [[George Galloway]].
* The '''[[British National Party]]''' is generally seen as an extreme right-wing or fascist party. It advocates the repatriation of non-white people from the UK to the countries of their or their families' origin.
*The [[Monster raving loony party|Monster Raving Loony Party]] is a 'joke' party, which however often receives significant numbers of [[protest vote]]s especially in high-profile [[by-election]]s (which may attract a large number, sometimes dozens, of other not entirely serious candidates).

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

British politics

2010-08-21T20:22:26Z

TrevS: /* Minor parties */ Removes political bias on Green Party section

'''British politics''' take place within the context of a democratic [[parliamentary]] system dominated by three major parties. Currently, there is a coalition government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats

The political culture of the UK tends to be more liberal than that of the United States, but less so than that of many other European nations. [[File:Brit-history.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Institutions==
===Parliament===

''See also [[Parliament]]''

The cornerstone of the uncodified British [[constitution]] is ''Parliamentary supremacy'', or ''Parliamentary sovereignty''.

Britain is one of a small number of nations without a codified constitution, and the British legislature, ''Parliament'', is free to legislate however it pleases. In British law, the only authority higher than parliamentary legislation is the law of the [[European Union]], and Britain is subject to EU law only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has chosen to accept it.

Parliament consists of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]]. The Queen today takes no part in active politics (the last time that a monarch refused to ratify a law passed by the Lords and Commons was in 1714). While the House of Lords is considered to be the more prestigious chamber, the Commons is dominant by virtue of the fact that its members are elected rather than appointed. The Lords can only delay rather than veto legislation, though the Commons rarely chooses to push through laws against the Lords' wishes (it has done so only five times since the Lords' absolute veto was removed in 1911).

Reform of the House of Lords is a current political issue in the UK. The House of Commons has resolved to make it more democratic, so that 80% or 100% of its members are elected rather than appointed.

===The Executive===

The British Government operates in the name of the Queen (or the "Crown"), but power lies in practice with the '''Prime Minister''' and his '''Cabinet'''. The British Prime Minister has one of the most powerful roles of any democratic head of government or head of state (though some, like the French President, have similar or more extensive powers).

Contrary to popular opinion, the British Prime Minister can be of any religion - for example, Iain Duncan-Smith, a Catholic, was made leader of the Conservative Party while in opposition which would have made him Prime Minister had the party won a general election at that time. In addition, [[Margaret Thatcher]] was a Methodist rather than an Anglican. Not many British political commentators make any mention of religion, and religion is not considered a major deciding factor in elections. The faith or denominations of party leaders is not well known.

The only relevant legislation that exists demands that the Monarch be Anglican; however, the now defunct position of advising the monarch on ecclesiastical affairs could have fallen to any member of the cabinet. No legislation exists which regulates the religion of the Prime Minister or any other member of parliament.

== Devolution ==

{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Nation/Region || Legislature || Executive || Leader(s)
|-
| '''[[Scotland]]''' || [[Scottish Parliament]] || Scottish Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Wales]]''' || National Assembly for Wales || Welsh Assembly Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Northern Ireland]]''' || Northern Ireland Assembly || Northern Ireland Executive || First Minister and Deputy First Minister1
|-
| '''[[London|Greater London]]''' || London Assembly|| Mayor of London || Mayor of London
|}


1 Northern Ireland is a dyarchy in which both leaders are regarded as equal.


==Local government==

Each locality in the UK has its own '''local authority''': there are '''councils''' of various sorts, as well as a number of elected '''mayors''' (most notably in London, whose current mayor is the sometimes controversial Conservative politician [[Boris Johnson]]). The powers of local authorities have been seen as declining for many years, however one of the main aims of the new coalition government is to reverse this.

It should be noted that most mayors in Britain are relatively powerless officials who serve as mere figureheads, in a similar way to the Monarch, as the power is with the local council, of which the mayor is the leader. However, a number of cities, such as London, have powerful mayors with a full executive role.

==Parties==

The British political spectrum has historically been dominated by the '''[[Labour Party]]''' on the left, the '''[[Conservative Party]]''' on the right, and the '''Liberal Party''' (now the [[Liberal Democrats]]) in the centre between them ("liberal" in British political terminology is often used to mean "centrist" or "moderate", rather than "left-wing"). In theory, these parties represent the three main political ideologies; liberal, conservative and socialist, but recently, there has been a perception that the main parties are crowding together on the centre ground. In the 1990s, Labour moved decisively away from the traditional left (angering many of its more traditionally-minded supporters), to the point where it was perceived by many as being less left-wing than the Liberal Democrats. Since the advent of [[David Cameron]] as its leader in 2005, the Conservative Party has moved away from the territory of the traditional right (in this case too, angering many of its more strongly conservative or [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] supporters).

===Labour===
see also [[Labour Party]]

The [[Labour Party]] is currently the opposition party in the UK and in the process of electing a new leader..<ref> It is also the largest party in the Welsh legislature and the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament.</ref>

Following its defeat by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979, the Labour Party adopted a strongly left-wing, socialist program. Following a catastrophic defeat in the 1983 general election, more moderate politicians took charge of Labour and slowly moved it closer to the centre ground of British politics, a process started by [[Neil Kinnock]] in the mid-1980s and carried forward enthusiastically by [[Tony Blair]] after his election as leader in 1994. Many more traditional, left-wing Labour supporters see Tony Blair as an usurper whose policies are too right-wing for comfort. This has been the case in particular following the Iraq War.

Blair's policies were arguably a mixture of left (e.g. higher taxes, higher government spending, greater integration with the European Union, equal rights for gay people) and right (e.g. pro-market reforms in the public services, retention of Lady Thatcher's labour laws, support for the [[War on Terror]] and [[George W. Bush]]'s foreign policies). His successor [[Gordon Brown]], once a close ally of Blair, has spoken out against the idea of the party shifting back to the left. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were both seen as modernists within the Labour Party before they were elected to power in 1997.

===Conservatives===
* Also See: [[Conservative Party]]
British conservatism has traditionally been a moderate, non-ideological creed: its heroes include such pragmatic figures as [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century and Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth century. These figures contrasted with contemporary conservatives from other European countries such as the French thinker [[Joseph de Maistre]], who were often strong, ideologically-minded supporters of absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism.

The Conservative Party became more ideologically conservative during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher]] (1975-1990). Since Lady Thatcher resigned in 1990s, the strongly conservative element within the party has been more or less eclipsed. It had some influence in the 1990s during the leadership of Sir John Major (1990-1997), but the current Conservative leader, [[David Cameron]], has moved decisively away from "Thatcherism". While this has caused dismay to many Conservative activists, it has greatly increased the popularity and electability of the Conservative Party.

===Liberal Democrats===

The Liberal Democrats (or "Lib Dems") were formed in 1988 by the merger of the old centrist Liberal Party with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP). They have long advocated disestablishing the [[Church of England]], and their current leader is [[Nick Clegg]], who has publicly said he is "not an active believer" in God, but claims to be "open-minded" about religion, has married a Catholic and is bringing his children up as Catholics.<ref>''Nick Clegg is a believer in families, not God'' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3076044.ece Times Online]</ref>

The Liberal Democrats are divided between a relatively left-wing faction (to which the former leaders Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy belong), which has taken positions to the left of the Labour Party on a number of issues, and a more right-wing, pro-[[free market]] faction to which the present leader belongs (several of whose members contributed to a controversial collection of essays published in 2004 called ''The Orange Book''). Despite the range of view on economic issues, the party is consistently liberal, even libertarian, on social issues. The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of anti-discrimination laws.

=== Scotland ===
The largest party in the [[Scottish Parliament]] is the '''[[Scottish National Party]]'''. Among other policies it advocates independence for Scotland.

=== Wales ===
There is also a Welsh nationalist party, called '''Plaid Cymru''', or simply '''Plaid''', which currently in coalition with Labour has control of the [[Welsh Assembly]].

=== Northern Ireland ===
Northern Ireland has a number of political parties:
* '''[[Democratic Unionist Party]]''' - strongly Unionist
* '''[[Sinn Fein]]''' - strongly Irish-Nationalist ("Republican")
* '''[[Ulster Unionist Party]]''' - moderately Unionist
* '''[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]]''' - moderately Irish-Nationalist

===Minor parties===
There are several other minor British parties worthy of mention:
* The '''[[UK Independence Party]]''' advocates the withdrawal of Britain from the [[European Union]] and other more strongly conservative policies than those supported by the official Conservative Party.
* The '''[[Green Party (UK)|Green Party]]''' is a left-wing party that advocates major constraints on economic acitity in order to prevent alleged anthropogenic global warming.
* '''[[RESPECT Party|Respect]]''' is a strongly left-wing, socialist party led by the maverick ex-Labour politician [[George Galloway]].
* The '''[[British National Party]]''' is generally seen as an extreme right-wing or fascist party. It advocates the repatriation of non-white people from the UK to the countries of their or their families' origin.
*The [[Monster raving loony party|Monster Raving Loony Party]] is a 'joke' party, which however often receives significant numbers of [[protest vote]]s especially in high-profile [[by-election]]s (which may attract a large number, sometimes dozens, of other not entirely serious candidates).

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

British politics

2010-08-21T20:18:03Z

TrevS: /* Scotland */

'''British politics''' take place within the context of a democratic [[parliamentary]] system dominated by three major parties. Currently, there is a coalition government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats

The political culture of the UK tends to be more liberal than that of the United States, but less so than that of many other European nations. [[File:Brit-history.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Institutions==
===Parliament===

''See also [[Parliament]]''

The cornerstone of the uncodified British [[constitution]] is ''Parliamentary supremacy'', or ''Parliamentary sovereignty''.

Britain is one of a small number of nations without a codified constitution, and the British legislature, ''Parliament'', is free to legislate however it pleases. In British law, the only authority higher than parliamentary legislation is the law of the [[European Union]], and Britain is subject to EU law only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has chosen to accept it.

Parliament consists of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]]. The Queen today takes no part in active politics (the last time that a monarch refused to ratify a law passed by the Lords and Commons was in 1714). While the House of Lords is considered to be the more prestigious chamber, the Commons is dominant by virtue of the fact that its members are elected rather than appointed. The Lords can only delay rather than veto legislation, though the Commons rarely chooses to push through laws against the Lords' wishes (it has done so only five times since the Lords' absolute veto was removed in 1911).

Reform of the House of Lords is a current political issue in the UK. The House of Commons has resolved to make it more democratic, so that 80% or 100% of its members are elected rather than appointed.

===The Executive===

The British Government operates in the name of the Queen (or the "Crown"), but power lies in practice with the '''Prime Minister''' and his '''Cabinet'''. The British Prime Minister has one of the most powerful roles of any democratic head of government or head of state (though some, like the French President, have similar or more extensive powers).

Contrary to popular opinion, the British Prime Minister can be of any religion - for example, Iain Duncan-Smith, a Catholic, was made leader of the Conservative Party while in opposition which would have made him Prime Minister had the party won a general election at that time. In addition, [[Margaret Thatcher]] was a Methodist rather than an Anglican. Not many British political commentators make any mention of religion, and religion is not considered a major deciding factor in elections. The faith or denominations of party leaders is not well known.

The only relevant legislation that exists demands that the Monarch be Anglican; however, the now defunct position of advising the monarch on ecclesiastical affairs could have fallen to any member of the cabinet. No legislation exists which regulates the religion of the Prime Minister or any other member of parliament.

== Devolution ==

{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Nation/Region || Legislature || Executive || Leader(s)
|-
| '''[[Scotland]]''' || [[Scottish Parliament]] || Scottish Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Wales]]''' || National Assembly for Wales || Welsh Assembly Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Northern Ireland]]''' || Northern Ireland Assembly || Northern Ireland Executive || First Minister and Deputy First Minister1
|-
| '''[[London|Greater London]]''' || London Assembly|| Mayor of London || Mayor of London
|}


1 Northern Ireland is a dyarchy in which both leaders are regarded as equal.


==Local government==

Each locality in the UK has its own '''local authority''': there are '''councils''' of various sorts, as well as a number of elected '''mayors''' (most notably in London, whose current mayor is the sometimes controversial Conservative politician [[Boris Johnson]]). The powers of local authorities have been seen as declining for many years, however one of the main aims of the new coalition government is to reverse this.

It should be noted that most mayors in Britain are relatively powerless officials who serve as mere figureheads, in a similar way to the Monarch, as the power is with the local council, of which the mayor is the leader. However, a number of cities, such as London, have powerful mayors with a full executive role.

==Parties==

The British political spectrum has historically been dominated by the '''[[Labour Party]]''' on the left, the '''[[Conservative Party]]''' on the right, and the '''Liberal Party''' (now the [[Liberal Democrats]]) in the centre between them ("liberal" in British political terminology is often used to mean "centrist" or "moderate", rather than "left-wing"). In theory, these parties represent the three main political ideologies; liberal, conservative and socialist, but recently, there has been a perception that the main parties are crowding together on the centre ground. In the 1990s, Labour moved decisively away from the traditional left (angering many of its more traditionally-minded supporters), to the point where it was perceived by many as being less left-wing than the Liberal Democrats. Since the advent of [[David Cameron]] as its leader in 2005, the Conservative Party has moved away from the territory of the traditional right (in this case too, angering many of its more strongly conservative or [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] supporters).

===Labour===
see also [[Labour Party]]

The [[Labour Party]] is currently the opposition party in the UK and in the process of electing a new leader..<ref> It is also the largest party in the Welsh legislature and the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament.</ref>

Following its defeat by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979, the Labour Party adopted a strongly left-wing, socialist program. Following a catastrophic defeat in the 1983 general election, more moderate politicians took charge of Labour and slowly moved it closer to the centre ground of British politics, a process started by [[Neil Kinnock]] in the mid-1980s and carried forward enthusiastically by [[Tony Blair]] after his election as leader in 1994. Many more traditional, left-wing Labour supporters see Tony Blair as an usurper whose policies are too right-wing for comfort. This has been the case in particular following the Iraq War.

Blair's policies were arguably a mixture of left (e.g. higher taxes, higher government spending, greater integration with the European Union, equal rights for gay people) and right (e.g. pro-market reforms in the public services, retention of Lady Thatcher's labour laws, support for the [[War on Terror]] and [[George W. Bush]]'s foreign policies). His successor [[Gordon Brown]], once a close ally of Blair, has spoken out against the idea of the party shifting back to the left. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were both seen as modernists within the Labour Party before they were elected to power in 1997.

===Conservatives===
* Also See: [[Conservative Party]]
British conservatism has traditionally been a moderate, non-ideological creed: its heroes include such pragmatic figures as [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century and Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth century. These figures contrasted with contemporary conservatives from other European countries such as the French thinker [[Joseph de Maistre]], who were often strong, ideologically-minded supporters of absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism.

The Conservative Party became more ideologically conservative during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher]] (1975-1990). Since Lady Thatcher resigned in 1990s, the strongly conservative element within the party has been more or less eclipsed. It had some influence in the 1990s during the leadership of Sir John Major (1990-1997), but the current Conservative leader, [[David Cameron]], has moved decisively away from "Thatcherism". While this has caused dismay to many Conservative activists, it has greatly increased the popularity and electability of the Conservative Party.

===Liberal Democrats===

The Liberal Democrats (or "Lib Dems") were formed in 1988 by the merger of the old centrist Liberal Party with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP). They have long advocated disestablishing the [[Church of England]], and their current leader is [[Nick Clegg]], who has publicly said he is "not an active believer" in God, but claims to be "open-minded" about religion, has married a Catholic and is bringing his children up as Catholics.<ref>''Nick Clegg is a believer in families, not God'' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3076044.ece Times Online]</ref>

The Liberal Democrats are divided between a relatively left-wing faction (to which the former leaders Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy belong), which has taken positions to the left of the Labour Party on a number of issues, and a more right-wing, pro-[[free market]] faction to which the present leader belongs (several of whose members contributed to a controversial collection of essays published in 2004 called ''The Orange Book''). Despite the range of view on economic issues, the party is consistently liberal, even libertarian, on social issues. The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of anti-discrimination laws.

=== Scotland ===
The largest party in the [[Scottish Parliament]] is the '''[[Scottish National Party]]'''. Among other policies it advocates independence for Scotland.

=== Wales ===
There is also a Welsh nationalist party, called '''Plaid Cymru''', or simply '''Plaid''', which currently in coalition with Labour has control of the [[Welsh Assembly]].

=== Northern Ireland ===
Northern Ireland has a number of political parties:
* '''[[Democratic Unionist Party]]''' - strongly Unionist
* '''[[Sinn Fein]]''' - strongly Irish-Nationalist ("Republican")
* '''[[Ulster Unionist Party]]''' - moderately Unionist
* '''[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]]''' - moderately Irish-Nationalist

===Minor parties===
There are several other minor British parties worthy of mention:
* The '''[[UK Independence Party]]''' advocates the withdrawal of Britain from the [[European Union]] and other more strongly conservative policies than those supported by the official Conservative Party.
* The '''[[Green Party (UK)|Green Party]]''' campaigns for protection of the environment, decentralisation and social justice.
* '''[[RESPECT Party|Respect]]''' is a strongly left-wing, socialist party led by the maverick ex-Labour politician [[George Galloway]].
* The '''[[British National Party]]''' is generally seen as an extreme right-wing or fascist party. It advocates the repatriation of non-white people from the UK to the countries of their or their families' origin.
*The [[Monster raving loony party|Monster Raving Loony Party]] is a 'joke' party, which however often receives significant numbers of [[protest vote]]s especially in high-profile [[by-election]]s (which may attract a large number, sometimes dozens, of other not entirely serious candidates).

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:British Politics]]
[[Category:British History]]

London Underground

2010-08-21T20:10:18Z

TrevS: /* Circle Line */

[[Image:London Underground.jpg|thumb|right|A sign for the underground in London England.]]
The '''London Underground''' (often referred to as "The Tube") is London's [[Subway|underground railway system]]. Many lines in the outskirts are at or above ground level.

It is comprised of 11 lines - Bakerloo, Central, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Jubilee, Metropolitan, Northern, Piccadilly (serves [[London Heathrow Airport|Heathrow Airport]]), Victoria and Waterloo & City lines.

The London underground is the oldest subway system in the world.

==Bakerloo Line==
A deep level line, it is one of the five lines that serves destinations south of the Thames, running from Elephant & Castle to Harrow & Wealdstone. Most of the subterranean section was built in the 19th century at the same time as one of the cities main sewers, after which it is named. It is also one of the few stations to have a fully underground terminus, at Elephant and Castle. A long stretch of the northern section of the route runs on the Watford DC line, and shares the track with heavy rail commuter services. There are much talked about but unfunded plans to extend the tunnels south-east to Lewisham and take over the Hayes branch line.

==Central Line==
A deep level line, the Central runs though the very centre of the City of London east to west, and is the longest line on the network by some margin. It is one of the most important lines on the network, and one of the most varied. A major bottleneck is the oldest subterranean section between Liverpool Street and St. Paul's where the narrow tunnels (11ft6" wide in parts) and extremely tight turns drastically reduces the operating speed of trains. However the line received massive investment in the early 90's, and an automatic "driverless" system (though an operator is still present in the cab at all times) means services can operative with a service interval of every 1-2minutes. At the time of the redevelopment, the little used Ongar extension, far beyond London boundaries in rural Essex and operated as a separate, very basic shuttle service, was abandoned. Subsequent overcrowding of the current terminus in Epping has led to proposals to redevelop the extension to the same standards as the rest of the line and reopen it to through trains from the rest of the line. The line runs from Ruislip in the north-western edge of Greater London to Epping in Essex. A short branch also serves Ealing in inner west London.

==Circle Line==
The Circle line is a "virtual" line on the system that has no actual track. It's coloured yellow on the map and, contrary to its name, since 2010 actually forms a spiral shape.

==District Line==
This line is one of the most complex on the system. It is a sub-surface line that as built via cut and cover methods, causing massive disruption to city inhabitants, and thus many delays in construction, as it passes through areas belonging to wealthy landowners who resisted its development. It runs east to west, passing through the southern edge of the city centre, immediately north of the Thames. Like the Bakerloo line, some of it's alignment follows a sewerage system built at the same time known as the Embankment, from which one station takes it's name. It runs from a single eastern terminus at Upurminister to Earls Court, where a short single track spur leads to Olympia and Edgeware Road. The line also continues west, where one branch heads to Wimbledon, following a heavy rail alignment with separate tracks. This branch is runs at maximum capacity and is a major bottleneck. Another branch runs to Ealing, and a final route heads further west still, before turning south to Richmond, sharing tracks with heavy rail on the final southern alignment. The Richmond-Gunnersbury section of this route was to be withdrawn and capacity released to allow a branch of the new Crossrail line to serve Richmond, but residents blocked the proposal, fearing government intervention and micromanagement of the Crossrail project will leave it unfinished or badly delayed, and leave Richmond residents with no mass transit service.

==Hammersmith & City Line==
A sub-surface line built via cut and cover, the route of this line encompasses the oldest sections of the network, dating to the 1860's. Today its one of the least crowded lines on the network, as most of it's route is also served by other lines on shared track. It runs on a north east to south west alignment, running from Barking in the east, to Hammersmith in the west. Despite the name, the line only skirts the historic Square Mile of the City of London, stopping at Liverpool Street, Farringdon and Moorgate, roughly following the alignment of the Roman era boundary of the city for this stretch. The Barking to Aldgate East stretch of the route is shared with the District Line, and Liverpool Street to Baker Street is shared with the Metropolitan Line. The Shepherds Bush line is coloured pink on the map, in reference to the artistic and gay friendly Shepherd's Bush area, which it serves. Along with the District Line, it will be one of the first Underground lines to receive air conditioned trains.

==Jubilee Line==
The newest line on the network, with the Stanmore to Charing Cross section opening in the 1970's. The southern/eastern section from Green Park to Stratford opened in 1999, in time for the Millennium Dome exhibition in North Greenwich. The Charing Cross section closed at this point, to allow for the new alignment, although the (now) branch line is kept in fully serviceable condition and has been proposed as a possible routing for a future DLR service. The new section of the line is radically different to the older 70's section, and every other line on the Underground. It has platform screen doors on the subterranean stations, and extremely large, futuristic stations featuring smooth brushed metal and smooth, minimalist concrete architectural style. the stations are designed to allow easy upgrading of the service and to handle much higher passenger volumes. The station at Canary Wharf, in the new financial district has been likened to a cathedral, whilst the station at North Greenwich can handle 20,000 passengers per hour. The line is the only one to have a direct interchange with all other Underground lines. When first proposed in the 70's, it was to be called the Fleet line after an underground London river, and was originally to be coloured grey, in association with the Royal Navy. It was changed to the Jubilee name prior to opening, to celebrate the Silver Jubilee of HRH Queen Elizabeth II, and the grey shade was altered to silver.

==Metropolitan Line==
The Metropolitan line is the oldest line on the network, and the oldest subterranean urban rail system in the world, with the first stretches opening in 1863. The line has altered and expanded drastically over the years, and is very differnt to other LU lines. It is unique in that signifcant stretches of the route are quad-tracked, allowing several "speeds" of service, with fast and semi-fast trains bypassing certain stations. It is also mostly above ground, with only 6 out of over 41 miles being in tunnel. Also, unlike all other lines except the W&C, it does not cross through and out the city centre, terminating at Aldgate, within zone 1. The line also has the most remote station on the network, at Chesham, more than 25 miles from Charing Cross, the official centre of London. It also has the longest distance between two stops, between Chehsam and Chalfont & Latimer, almost 4 miles apart. It is the line on the LU network to serve zones 7 to 9, which lie outside of Greater London. The line layout is complex, having no less than four branches, with one shared with the Picadilly line (the Uxbridge branch),and another (Amersham branch) with mainline rail services, whilst the lightly used (and poorly served). The line colour is a brown/purple colour, known as "Corporate Magenta" by TFL.

Trains on the line are currently a highly unusual design, featuring entirely lateral 3+2 high backed seating, used on no other LU line. This is due to the long journey times with infrequent stops, so provides maximum seating space at the expense of overall passenger capacity. The line is one of the quietest on the network, and is mostly used for long distance suburban journeys, and with it's mix of "fast" and "slow" trains shares more in common with suburban commuter rail than mass transit. When the existing 1960's era stock is phased out in the next few years, the line will receive the standard new air conditioned sub surface stock, which will be shared across several lines and feature a more conventional arrangement.

==External Link==
*[http://tfl.gov.uk/tube Official Website]

[[Category: Transportation]]

Talk:Liberal

2010-08-21T17:30:22Z

TrevS: /* A few minor things */

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


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''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).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== 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]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* 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.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== 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)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== 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...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==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)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==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.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] 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. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

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)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (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)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 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)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (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

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2010-08-21T17:27:57Z

TrevS: /* A few minor things */

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


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''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).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== 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]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* 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.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== 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)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

== 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...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==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)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==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.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] 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. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

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)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (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)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 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)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (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

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

:And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

Swindon

2010-08-21T17:19:44Z

TrevS:

'''Swindon''' (from the Anglo-Saxon ''swin dun'', 'pig hill') is a large town in the county of [[Wiltshire]], in central-southern [[England]]. Originally a small market town, it expanded greatly in the 1840s when the manufacturing works of the [[Great Western Railway]] were located there.

[[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]

Swindon

2010-08-21T17:17:42Z

TrevS: Created page with ''''Swindon''' (from the Anglo-Saxon ''swin dun'', 'pig hill') is a large town in the county iof Wiltshire, in central-southern England. Originally a small market town, it…'

'''Swindon''' (from the Anglo-Saxon ''swin dun'', 'pig hill') is a large town in the county iof [[Wiltshire]], in central-southern [[England]]. Originally a small market town, it expanded greatly in the 1840s when the manufacturing works of the [[Great Western Railway]] were located here.

[[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]