Jump to content

Talk:Liberal Party of Australia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 31: Line 31:


Wiki is now akin to [[pravda]] and [[fox news channel]].
Wiki is now akin to [[pravda]] and [[fox news channel]].

:Well thank you for that critique of our article. It's always refreshing to see there are still people out there who think their opinion is the only correct and fair one. I assure you this and other Australian politics-related articles have been scrutinised and edited by both experts in the field as well as a large number of ordinary Australian users, a majority of whom, from my experience, appear to lean more towards Labor ideologies. The aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view, not to place any "loyalties". - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 02:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:31, 7 February 2005

I dispute the statement that:

Neither the present Liberal party, nor a previous Liberal party, the Commonwealth Liberal Party, has been "liberal" in the sense in which the word is generally used in most other countries

The Liberal party may not be liberal in the US sense, but it is in the sense used in most other countries. See liberal and the discussion there. - 207.218.87.162, 19:48, 11 Jul 2004

incidentally, do we need that smh article about "liberal's being anything but"?? As mentioned above, Liberal is consistent with traditional liberalism, as opposed to U.S. liberalism. Even though i know this country is americanising, do we have to even use the american meaning of political and ideological words?? Xtra 00:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article actually refers to the movement from the Menzies era into the Howard era of the liberal party. It's balance for the Liberal website (which obviously supports Liberal POV). - Aaron Hill 03:48, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

The Liberal party is in no way Liberal in the US sense, but extremely conservative in nature, typically from a Christian view.

luckily, the liberal party is not a US party. Xtra 03:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I object to the complete fabrication that the Liberal party governs with "neo-liberalism." Their policies speak for themselves, and in any sense of the word, they are conservative. All of their policies, from reducing immigration, detention, abortion, and countless other issues clearly favour a conservative view point. How can a party that opposes abortion, stops immigration, and bans gay rights be any but conservative?

Perhaps because you are confused about what neoliberalism is: I suggest you take a look. Lacrimosus 10:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
i think you miss the point. and i think you are making unwarranted assumptione and false accusations. the liberals have in fact increased immigration, contrary to your misguided belief. the liberals have no policy to reduce abortion, there are factions within the liberals who believe abortion is too prevelant, but there is no push within the liberals to change party policy on that. detention was started by labor, not the liberals. there are an abundance of gay rights in australia under the liberal government. sure there is a large conservative group within the liberals. there is also a neo-liberal group, just as large. i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from. Xtra 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Wow. an insult from an encylopedia. Now we know your loyalties lay a little to the right. You're missing the point: the liberal government imprisons any person with an accent and a suspect passport for 10 months without help or consideration. Keep up with current events much?

Plenty of gay rights? That's why they created a man-woman marriage clause? And Howard banned gay marriage citing that he "didn't wan't the species to die out." Wow, so much progress...given this was the excuse to make homosexuality illegal in the first place in Europe.

Howard wants to open a discussion about abortion. Why would you need to an open discussion, or to make abortions less secretive, if you weren't planning on changing the laws? There is a difference between what they say, and what they actually do. Howard himself also said the GST was a dead Tax, then imposed it one term later. Just goes to a pattern of his habitual lying is all.

Finally, Howard gave his farewell message before Christmas for people to "be proud of their Christianity." Is that something a neo-liberal government would do?

Wiki is now akin to pravda and fox news channel.

Well thank you for that critique of our article. It's always refreshing to see there are still people out there who think their opinion is the only correct and fair one. I assure you this and other Australian politics-related articles have been scrutinised and edited by both experts in the field as well as a large number of ordinary Australian users, a majority of whom, from my experience, appear to lean more towards Labor ideologies. The aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view, not to place any "loyalties". - Mark 02:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)