FANDOM


This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Spin Room > Liberapedia Debate


Here, we plan to debate Liberapedia on the issues.

I've copied this debate to Liberapedia, at Liberapedia Debate. Proxima Centauri 04:30, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Economic Issues

  • Why have conservatives taken a fiscally liberal economic policies, when taxes were highest in the 50s, and why do they want to lower taxes now that is lower than it ever has been before?


  • Why do conservatives complain about Government Mandated Health Care when the Heritage Foundation, Romney, and Gingrich proposed the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mectrixctic (talkcontribs)
I prefer to refrain from debating what parties have done in the past and focus on what policies can do for the future. Regarding Health Care, Romney proposed it on a state level. In his sate, Massachusetts, the people favored it 3 to 1. Romney has always favored Governors doing what's best to fit their own state. He never said the Massachusetts plan should be adopted nationally. Gingrich favors some parts of Obamacare, like the preexisting conditions part, but he does not agree with the individual mandate. Omashu Rocks - Talk 00:01, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
[1] "I'm proud of what we've done, If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation." - W. M. Romney {{SUBST:Mecsig}} 00:26, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
A model for the rest of the states to look at and possibly copy. He never said it should be implemented on a federal level. Omashu Rocks - Talk 01:19, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

How people performed in the past affects the way they will likely perform in the future is we should take past performance into account. Incidentally United States health care is on trouble and needs reform. Even Greece and Chile, despite the problems there keep their citizens alive longer than the United States, see What's killing America? U.S. ranks 28th in life expectancy (lower than Chile and Greece) while it pays the MOST for health care. Proxima Centauri 13:48, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, high taxes has worked in the past. During the 50-70s the economy and businesses were doing great. The Bush tax cuts proved that they didn't create any jobs and added to the defecit. {{SUBST:Mecsig}} 19:21, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Bush's tax policies were not the problem. Spending was not reduced at the level it should have been. Both Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich have outlined plans to dramatically cut wasteful spending. This decreases the deficit and creates jobs. Right Man_Talk

Bush was an idiot for cutting taxes and increasing spending. However, spending does increase jobs, if you're spending right.

Romney said he was not going to cut defense, despite the waste it causes (Gingrich does, and Romoney attacked him for that). And it does create jobs, as the government uses the money to create jobs, such as building roads and bridges, regulating environmental and health problems, ect. Tax cuts cause people to give themselves bonuses and outsource, so they don't create jobs like Government spending does. {{SUBST:Mecsig}} 20:08, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that spending is good, but not in defense? Have you considered that defense cuts would hurt jobs in that area? (Pentagon, military bases, etc). Environmental regulations, such as the ones imposed on us by the EPA destroy jobs and end up causing more harm than good. Right Man_Talk 20:17, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

    • A lot of defense spending is done on large weapons and not given to the solders through things like the GI Bill. If I was an assassin, I would have a job, but the government would stop me since that is a bad job to have.

Yeah, I suppose cancer wards DO employ a decent number of people. --76.120.71.253 05:18, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

The Keystone Pipeline is certainly not going to plague America with cancer--only 20,000 jobs… Omashu Rocks - Talk 02:23, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Temporary jobs at that! {{SUBST:Mecsig}} 01:30, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

There are millions of people in America who'd kill for a temporary job. Omashu Rocks - Talk 20:27, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Israel should take care of itself thank you very much. Ron Paul 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous (talkcontribs)

Social Issues

I'm trying to track down and copy all Liberapedia based debate here.
Note: I don’t have time to write my debating points in detail, I got into this debate mainly because User:Omashu Rocks and User:Mectrixctic were keen. To see the points I’m making properly please follow the links I made to Liberapedia articles etc. Proxima Centauri 13:51, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

You would like me to debate you, that's cool please give me a link. Note: I study politics throughout the world including, for example happy Denmark, I care about more than the United States. Proxima Centauri 16:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of Omashu Rocks

I'm sorry that Mitt Romney won a nomination because Mitt Romney is a Flip Flopper, sitll I don't think the other Republicans are better. Proxima Centauri 10:06, February 1, 2012 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of Omashu Rocks

Well, being that you're liberal, I don't see why you'd have a problem with our nominee being "liberal" like you claim he is. I understand that Barack Obama has never once in his life changed his mind on anything, and that he is the perfect creation sent down from God to lead us into the promise land, but I'd be more than happy with Governor Romney becoming President Romney. Thank you. Omashu Rocks - Talk 00:41, February 3, 2012 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of Proxima Centauri

Omashu Rocks challenged us at Liberapedia but I know it’s you and other Conservative adults I will really be debating. You’ll get up on your hind legs to defend Conservative cubs. Anyway I’ll start a debate with you, here goes.

  1. How do you justify the intolerance in the United States Bible Belt?
  2. How do you explain the bad social record in the United States Bible Belt? It’s clear to me Conservative Christian values do harm.
  3. How do you explain the differences between what Conservative Christians teach and what Jesus taught? See Religious Right.

I’m curious to see how you’ll deal with this. Proxima Centauri 08:07, February 7, 2012 (UTC) Copied from the talk page of User talk:Mama Grizzly

Your questions will be hard to answer, as their premise is false. However, I will attempt to answer your frivolous requests if you would in turn explain to me why you guys at Liberapedia are obsessed with religious issues.

  1. Again, the premise is false. The map of your so-called "Bible Belt" displays several states in which I've visited on numerous occasions. There, I saw racial minorities and even homosexuals living happily among the others. Your page also suggests that Christians are intolerant to other races, despite there being plenty of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and gay Christians across the world.
  2. As for the bad record of this "Bible Belt", I must again point out that the premise of your question is false. Are the statistics you have on your page true? I don't really care, but I do think it's wrong to take one geographic area and see how many negative things you can say about it. Do you realize that many of your Liberapedia users may live in that area? I'm particularly interested by your mention of high STD rates, as San Francisco seems to wear that crown.
  3. Jesus taught that having faith along with working hard was the best way to succeed. He never said that anything should be handed to people for free by the federal government. He also spoke about the preciousness of all life and marriage.

I wouldn't count out Omashu Rocks either. He founded the wiki and he seems to know everything about politics. Mama Grizzly_Talk Pink elephant 23:08, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


We aren't obsessed with religion at Liberapedia, most of our articles are about general politics. Still we dislike how your type try to force Christian morality specifically Republican morality onto the rest of us. Proxima Centauri 18:24, February 8, 2012 (UTC)


I'm not forcing any religious morality on you, although you're attempting to force yours on me. I quite frankly don't care what faiths other people practice, but in this nation, politicians and public figures have the right to be outspoken about their religious beliefs. They even have the right to vote based on faith if that's what they promised when they were running. Could you list some examples of politicians you feel are attempting to force faith on others? By the way, there's a chat room where we could have an easier debate. We could even have a Liberapedia vs. Conservative Wiki fight! Mama Grizzly_Talk Pink elephant 01:31, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

So you think Americans should be free to campaign and if elected vote on faith issues. That means in an equal and democratic system opponents of faith based positions should be free to point out the harm we feel dogmatic faith causes. I’ll give just one example, religious objections to Stem cell research prevent sick people getting better. Liberapedia approves of Stem cell research as well. If you vote for candidates who are pledged to prevent stem cell research you are forcing your morality onto sick people who want the cures stem cell research may provide. Proxima Centauri 10:22, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Palin thinks we should "Create laws based on the law of the bible" @4:45, but watch all of it. Gingrich says atheists should not hold public office. Santorum's moral's is christian morals and should be forced on the rest of us. I could find more but I only had 10 minutes to look. Here are also some examples of christian morality laws in effect. 64.28.248.125 15:02, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Proxima Centauri, but my morals as an atheist are based on the constitution and declaration of independence. My morality IS forced on you by the founding fathers via the constitution. Furthermore, 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' First, notice the usage of 'their creator'. That phrase was carefully chosen by Jefferson, those words are INCLUSIVE to atheists (or deists in his time) since my creator is nature itself. Any law on marriage to define it in a christian scope or ANY kind of christian morality laws are unconstitution because of the first amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. 64.28.248.125 15:58, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Both documents are hundreds of years old. While they contain many great things, t is irrational to hold them as dogma. Furthermore, the DoI is not in any way law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mectrixctic (talkcontribs)

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

Partly copied from the talk page of User talk:Proxima Centauri

I don't accuse Mamma Grizly personally of forcing her religion onto others, though her type of Republican Christian does that. Republican heroine, Michele Bachmann contributed to creating a social climate where school kids who were gay or were considered gay (teens don't always know their sexual orientation) were driven to suicide, see One Town's War on Gay Teens. When I and other Liberapedians are concerned about that type of religiously motivated abuse I think we are being reasonable. Proxima Centauri 20:35, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann's work on the school board was to fight the Minnesota Democrats' attempts to block the teaching of abstinence. She was extremely successful and that's what later on brought people to ask her to run for office. Believe it or not, her primary goal in life is not to attack gays. Being a mom of 28, she understands very well that one of her children may be a homosexual, and while she doesn't support same-sex marriage, she doesn't hate gays personally. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Mama Grizzly_Talk Pink elephant 03:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Written originally here

Yeah, in practice "hate the sin, love the sinner" seems to come down to "we love your soul so much that we will liberate it from its earthly vessel." :-P Here's one: Why do Republicans keep pushing abstinence-only sex ed when it obviously didn't work for Bristol Palin OR the Virgin Mary, and countries with ACTUAL sex-ed (such as Denmark) have vastly lower per-capita abortion rates? --76.120.71.253 04:23, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're implying that Michele Bachmann has killed gay people, which is completely false… Moving on, the Virgin Mary clearly did practice abstinence, as she had not had sex when Gabriel announced her pregnancy. Secondly, I have no idea why Denmark has lower per-capita abortion rates, but I love how implied that having a low abortion rate is a good thing--it is. Republicans don't "keep pushing abstinence-only sex ed". They want both abstinence and safe-sex to be taught. Bristol Palin, who chose life, is off limits, seriously. Don't bring their families into it. Omashu Rocks - Talk 04:35, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Teen girls in Denmark have fewer abortions because they and their partners know how to use Contraception. Abstinence education causes unwanted pregnancies including one notable case that is off limits.

See above for a case where a policy approved by Michele Bachmann lead to teen suicide though this may not have been an intended consequence. Proxima Centauri 09:46, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Why is Blessed Saint Sarah's daughter off-limits? Tell me with a straight face that if a Democrat's teenage daughter got preggers outside of marriage that the Republican Party would not be trying to brand her with a scarlet A and condemning her and her parents for their UTTER MORAL FAILURE 24/7366 (It's a leap year). Actually, don't bother, because past experience prevents me believing you. --76.120.71.253 18:48, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

All family is off limits. A decent Republican would never attack a Democrat's daughter for getting pregnant. Omashu Rocks - Talk 03:27, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Good to see we can both agree to exclude Rush Limbaugh from the list of "decent Republicans", then. She may not have gotten pregnant, but remember all the nasty things he said about Chelsea Clinton? Or FOX news calling Michelle Obama Barack's "Babymama" back in 2008? (Apparently they didn't get the memo that negroes have been legally permitted to marry for a while now.) --76.120.71.253 05:17, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't get the memo that "Babymama" has no relevance to African American marriages. Omashu Rocks - Talk 03:10, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.